The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator without opposition. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second inauguration of Ulysses S. Grant[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Three other articles, Ulysses S. Grant and Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant and United States presidential election, 1872, already cover the inauguration at length. No need for a fourth article, esp since the article offers very little info and has remained a stub since it was created 8 years ago. The article only had one citation : (Ulysses S. Grant, 1873 | Twenty-Second Inaugural Ceremonies | Inauguration of the President) (removed) which gave an "access denied" result, while the 2nd half of the one paragraph in this article remains without a citation. Subsequently the article has no citations. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unless we look at ever other article about a presidential inauguration. Despite WP:OSE, it seems perverse to get rid of one article when every inauguration has such an article. I don't actually think every inauguration needs an article, but neither do I think proposing them for deletion piecemeal is helpful. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are basing your objection in relation to other articles and seem to be ignoring the valid reasons for deleting this article. No one want's to delete all inauguration articles, but only those articles that duplicate other articles that cover a given inauguration specifically, and at length. In this case there are already three articles that cover the inauguration at length, so it's not like anyone wants to get rid of the subject entirely here at Wikipedia. Also, the article has been a stub since it was created eight years ago, and is presently lacking citations. The article previously had one citation, but it yielded an "access denied" result. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am saying that piecemeal deletion of one of a whole and complete series of articles is not helpful to Wikipedia. If you don't like the articles then nominate all the short inauguration articles for deletion at the same time, not just one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a consideration that effects virtually no one. Cases of redundancy are dealt with all the time via deletion or merging. Inaugurations should be covered with a section in the main article first. If the section should become very large in proportion to the rest of the article, then a separate article is practical.
Along with this article, created on January 22, 2009, at least two editors went around and created more than a dozen inauguration articles/stubs that same day, (I stopped checking after that) that have been generally neglected. Your concern here is that we should keep this article simply because similar articles exist, as some assumed convention. Editing conventions are practical in some cases -- in other cases they serve no practical purpose. There are three articles that cover Grant's Presidency, articles that are filled with dozens of notable events. All the events don't automatically warrant their own article. Main/General articles is where such information should be covered first because this is where thousands of readers every month go. Neglect, by readers and editors, and redundancy, were the general reasons for nominating to delete. Thought no one would notice, or mind. Having said that, since there are some editors who would like to keep the article, and an effort was made by someone willing to add more information, with sources, I will not argue any further to delete. Don't want to be the boggie man here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The coverage given to the inauguration in those other articles about Grant amounts to a date, mention of the inaugural address, that Chase was Chief Justice, and the picture. Other information often provided at inauguration articles for other presidents includes information about the parade, the ball, and the other officials presiding. Another point that could be discussed is that the reception to the day was underwhelming, in part due to low attendance because of the weather. Also, an expensive building was custom built for the inaugural ball on Judiciary Square, I think it was the last time such a temporary structure was used for this purpose. So, in my opinion, the article passes WP:NEVENT and there is a lot more that could be said about the event. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The main event is the second term of presidency, of which the actual inauguration is only but a fleeting episode, lasting only a few hours at best. Any notability this topic receives is in the context of the second term, of which there would be no inauguration without. Other than the things you mentioned little more can be said, and devoting a separate article for this subtopic of the major notable event is wholly redundant, esp since this information can go in any one of the three articles mentioned/linked above. Also, as mentioned, this article has remained a stub for eight years, while the other three articles are actively edited and frequently viewed (1, 2, 3), while this article is not nearly so. After the article was created it has only received a handful of minor tweaks over the last eight years. Given the activity on the other pages it is more than safe to assume this article will remain neglected. As there are three active other articles, 'Notability', by itself, doesn't amount to much. Keeping this redundant article serves no actual purpose. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is just to let anyone interested know that for fun I've expanded the article along the lines I suggested. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making the effort to make this article something more than a neglected stub, and for the leg work finding sources and adding citations. The inauguration involved three general phases: The ceremony and parade, which deliveredGrant & company to the inauguration, the inaugural ball, and the parade and ceremony after the inauguration. Since there is an interest, albeit all of the sudden, to keep and build on the article, I have no strong objection to keeping. Hope it turns into something that justifies making a separate article for. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for saying so. I'm sorry that the interest seems to arrive all of the sudden, had I been watching the page I may have made an attempt to improve it earlier. One of my sub-interests in elite society in the United States from the mid-1800s to early-1900s, and while I cannot be everywhere at once, do let me know if there is an article along those lines needing cleanup that is needling you (WP:DINC). I've been trying to go through articles in my interest with notability tags, and can start looking at articles with unreferenced tags as well, but it isn't my first priority. Of course, if you think Wikipedia:Deletion policy is relevant, feel free to prod or AfD as you did here. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep given that the nominator is now happy for it to be kept. Notable event in American political history. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.