Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legal status of Alaska (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Merger is possible with a local consensus, but one doesn't appear to exist here (nor against it) - and with two noted targets, I won't impose it by fiat from here Wily D 08:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legal status of Alaska

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

Entire article gives undue emphasis to an extremely fringe theory. Anything useful here could go under Alaskan Independence Party and/or Joe Vogler. Orange Mike | Talk 22:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and then possibly merge to Alaskan Independence Party and/or Joe Vogler (which could be decided through discussion on article talk pages). If the article is deleted, then a merge, as suggested in the nomination for deletion, wouldn't be easy to accomplish. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Page is currently the subject of a merge discussion with Alaskan Independence Party. Based on the listed references (some of which aren't online) it might just about be notable as a fringe theory, but a merge is also certainly a possibility, and therefore I would recommend concluding the merge discussion. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect to Alaskan Independence Party per this discussion, and rationale of the nominator.--JayJasper (talk) 20:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say the article is "currently" the subject of a merge discussion as I opened that discussion over a year ago and it hasn't been edited in some time. I think Radiokaos made some very good points in his remarks there about how it may be possible to alter the aricle into something more comprehensive, but unless and until that happens I still support a merge. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite/restructure - First of all, I fail to see how this is a second nomination. The first reads like something which would have otherwise been deleted as vandalism. Constructing a POV fork (whether intentional or not) can attract the wrong attention to an article. There's no reason to continue, Don Quixote-like, in that same direction, however. The frequent infantile vandalism to North Pole, Alaska ended once I rewrote the article to actually refer to and offer any information on North Pole, Alaska, rather than previous versions which served as little more than a coatrack article for Santa Claus. The Russian occupation, American settlers' moves for self-determination from the Alaska Purchase through to statehood, and Native self-determination and land claims would all fall under this topic. ANCSA didn't end the latter, as proven by the Venetie case (Venetie didn't participate in ANCSA). I developed the impression that this article came about due to its perceived need "as part of a series about YYY in the United States". What we have is some random material copied from the easiest sources possible (in this case, another Wikipedia article) in lieu of a perhaps more properly constructed article.RadioKAOS (talk) 02:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom's reasoning. We don't need dedicated articles for fringe theories. --Nouniquenames (talk) 03:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, educational and encyclopedic. Good value for the project for historical perspective and educating potential students about this particular facet of the regional history of the locality and surrounding impacted zones. — Cirt (talk) 03:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd favor keeping this as a standalone article if it is rewritten and restructured as RadioKAOS suggests. Failing such a rewrite, merging is still the best course of action, per rationale of the nom. & others opposing keeping as a standalone article in its current state.--JayJasper (talk) 05:08, 3 September 2012 (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.