Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antebellum

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 merge to Antebellum Age. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antebellum

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

Irrecoverable melange of several topics smushed together into an article titled with an adjective. "Antebellum" is a descriptive word, not a concept (which is probably why the article jumps around to so many different topics). Its content is largely unreferenced; what information is referenced belongs in (and is covered in) other articles. We already have an article on the time period, Antebellum Age, so this page is unneeded. Powers ^T 02:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and improve Antebellum Age. I'd love to work on the section about romanticism of the period, but realistically I doubt I'll ever get around to it. Recognizance (talk) 03:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. --can dle •wicke 03:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. My understanding is that "antebellum" and "antebellum age" both refer to the South before the Civil War. Antebellum Age's use of the term for the whole of the United States is something I have never heard of before. The topic should be covered in articles with more normal, neutral titles like "History of the Southern United States", "Culture of the Southern United States", etc. Borock (talk) 15:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Antebellum Age is not under discussion here; please open a new AfD if you feel it should be deleted. Though you might want to wait for a result from this one. Powers ^T 16:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I actually think that the editors working on United States history should take a look at it since it claims to be about a large section of US history. Borock (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Antebellum South is a popular subject/concept (particularly in the southern United States) because it refers to the "good old days" before the Civil War before the "Southern pride" was tarnished culturally and economically. The Antebellum North as a concept, however, exists and is referred to in historical literature, though the Antebellum South seems to be more popular for the aforementioned reason. Narthring (talk • contribs) 17:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A very sound start to an article on the concept. There's quite enough for the two articles. The war affected more than the South, and was a dividing line for the country in general. As proof of the standard usage, see the book titles, Antebellum writers in New York. Second series ISBN 9780787646677 from a standard reference publisher; Everyday ideas : socioliterary experience among antebellum New Englanders ISBN 9781572334717, and, most tellingly, A southern odyssey : travelers in the antebellum North a famous book by john Hope Franklin, a famous historian, ISBN 9780807101612 , and about 1/3 of the several thousand books listed under "Antebellum" in worldcat. Wikipedia is not limited to what any one of us has heard of previously. About 95% of Wikipedia is things I have never heard of previously--that's the point of an encyclopedia. Nor is the meaning of everything what I may intuitively think it on the basis of my limited knowledge -- that's the point of reference books in general! DGG ( talk ) 14:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure you're looking at the right article? "Antebellum" isn't a concept; it's an adjective. Powers ^T 20:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a tough one. I do however think that this article should be removed as "Antebellum" by itself is just an adjective (as mentioned above), and the other article, Antebellum Age covers the material that this one strives to cover, and it does it more thoroughly and under a more accurate article title. I think DGG's "Keep" bullet above is misplaced, I agree with Powers that he may not be looking at the correct article. JEN9841 (talk) 07:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found this entry with a Google search for "antebellum", as I didn't know what this word meant and it wasn't in my old Concise Oxford Dictionary. The word "antebellum" is used at the start of the fourth section of chapter one of "Dreams from my Father" by Barack Obama. The "Antebellum" Wikipedia entry told me just what I needed to know. I probably wouldn't have followed a link to "Antibellum Age" and would have looked elsewhere. Thanks to all for Wikipedia and all your work, Clark Killick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.29.173 (talk) 09:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The second Google result for "antebellum" is a link to the Merriam-Webster dictionary entry for the word. I'm certain that would have been sufficient for you. Powers ^T 15:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG - there is plenty of information out there about this concept. Bearian (talk) 18:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I ask again: what concept? Concepts are defined by nouns, not by adjectives. Powers ^T 13:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe the editor is referring to a concept as an abstract or general idea, understood, and retained or conceived in the mind; a thought or notion. I may be showing my own ignorance, but I have never heard of concepts restricted to only nouns and not adjectives. The antebellum article seems to be assuming that "antebellum" means "pre-Civil War United States" instead of the adjective itself. This is the same concept as the Antebellum Age article. Narthring (talk • contribs) 22:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well that's why I was asking -- "antebellum" is descriptive but not definitive. For the most likely concept, we already have an article, so I was wondering what other concept Bearian might mean. Powers ^T 13:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Antebellum Age. These articles are the same concept. There doesn't seem to be any difference between Antebellum in the article's usage and the Antebellum Age, and the perceived difference between the two isn't enough to warrant two separate articles. Narthring (talk • contribs) 17:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Antebellum Age, seem the best choice here. 98.119.158.59 (talk) 22:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Antebellum Age. Edward321 (talk) 00:29, 22 August 2009 (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.