Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Divided Sovereignty

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 delete. I'm seeing a consensus that this should not exist as a stand-alone article. Since several redirect targets have been suggested, a discussion of whether "Divided soveregnty" should be re-created as a redirect (and, if so, what the target should be) can be conducted elsewhere. Deor (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Divided Sovereignty

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

Hopelessly WP:OR ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an opinion piece. As User: BD2412 notes the subject is already covered under Federalism in the United States. Red Harvest (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. bd2412 T 19:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep While the article is a little essay-like and unbalanced right now, it's not original research. I think we could have a distinct article on this concept, which is a political theory concept that is somewhat distinct from the actual chronicles of the history of federalism in the United States. Not opposed to chopping large parts of the existing article back to a stub if that's what it takes though. Gigs (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This would best be served re-pointing to Federalism i the United States, where perhaps a stub of this material could be incorporated. Simonm223 (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV pushing, violates an alphabet soup of policies and guidelines. Brimba (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. unnecessary OR. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Federalism. Article is unusable, but term seems to be used in other sources as a type of Federalism. Empire3131 (talk) 03:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
REdirect to Federalism, which is the target implied by the title. The content in fact only relates to one country (USA), so that if there is anything worth merging (which I doubt), the target woudl be the USA article. However, the article has the feel of an undergraduate essay. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The articles on Federalism and States Rights fail to gather into one place the Constitution's Framers reasons for wording the Preamble with provide versus promote, 9th and 10th Amendments. In 1982 the Federal providing welfare via a communications monopoly was declared unconstitutional. Federal violation of divided sovereignty (see President Madison's Mar 3, 1817 veto) by taxing to provide welfare via energy and transportation infrastructure monopolies resulted in the current problems of pollution tilting the balance of nature with Climate Change, resource depletion with US Peak Oil in 1970, 50% dependence of the US economy of foreign oil, oil-wars since 1990, and funding of terrorists with oil-dollars. The lack of use of the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution to defend individual liberty indicates the lack of importance placed on divided sovereignty. The use of the Tenth Amendment to suppress individual liberty via "States Right's" indicates the perversion of divided sovereignty. Nullification by the states was a failed attempt to enforce divided sovereignty. BillJamesMN (talk) 13:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Determining framers' intent is the judiciary's job, not wikipedias. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And BillJamesMN is also inserting his original research into other articles. The sooner this is deleted, the better. Red Harvest (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Redir to Federalism Phrase does not appear in the constitution, but this article is premised on Lead Sentence 1's false assertion that it is defined in that document. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dual federalism. Closing administrator, I think that this article thematically more closely corresponds to the existing article on "dual federalism", rather than "federalism". "Dual federalism" is far from perfect, but it has a workable outline, prose rather than marching quotes, and some reasonable citations. FeatherPluma (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and redirect probably to Federalism, but that can be discussed subsequently. The present article is a string of long quotations assembled to make an essay, and neither overall nor in detail adds anything to Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 17 February 2015 (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.