Wiki143:Articles for deletion/Sedition Act of 1861

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Sedition Act of 1861

This article was prodded and a detailed comment left on the talk page. I thought it would be better for AfD where it could get some discussion. My own personal opinion is delete as it is a mess and can always be redone at some later date with better content. If this AfD prompts somone to write a better article this week, then keep. Here is the original prodder's thoughts

The reason for this proposed deletion is that the article seems confused. It partly seems like it's trying to define the crime of sedition, but also gives the impression (by the title) that it is speaking about a single piece of legislature. One statement, which I deleted, said that this was also known as the Alien and Sedition Acts, but those laws were passed in 1798. In addition, I have found no reference to a "Sedition Act of 1861" on the internet except on Wikipedia mirrors. Perhaps the article is meant to refer to the arrest of war protesters and southern sympathizers in 1861? Fightindaman 00:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

We do have an article on the Alien and Sedition Acts. It seems the first reference to the '61 act was [1]. No source was given and the user is inactive, so... Shimgray | talk | 23:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom: this article doesn't seem to serve any purpose except to confuse. As mentioned, a Google search turns up nothing [2], and a Google Scholar search doesn't turn up anything for the term either [3]. The title of the article may be referring to the "Sedition Conspiracy Act" of 1861 [4], or just the "Conspiracy Act" of 1861 [5]. But neither of those turns have many Google hits, either. [6][7] (The second at least has some.) In any case, this article is completely confused. Maybe even speedy delete as nonsense. bcasterline^talk 17:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: I found a reference in Google Groups [8]. In fact, this article seems to be taken verbatim from a quotation in that thread. But the quotation is not attributed, so I don't know where it came from. It's still a poor article, which probably falls under WP:CSD A1 (little or no context), so my vote is still delete. bcasterline^talk 17:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unless somebody can verify/clarify/rewrite it. Fightindaman 18:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I can't find a single reference anywhere to the name of this act as given in the article, that doesn't come from Wikipedia. Tagged as {{not verified}}. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; the (not verified) tag doubles the length of the article. Nothing to cry about. Melchoir 22:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

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.