Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Ghana (1966–79)

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. Sandstein 12:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History of Ghana (1966–79)

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

Redundant to other articles on Ghana's history. Totally arbitrary set of years (why 1966-79 specifically?). Only one source. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an article copypasted from a single source adds nothing to the encyclopedia beyond a link to the book in the Ghana article. Rhadow (talk) 10:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The years are based on the rule by the NLC and NRC, starting with the 1966 coup and ending with the rise of Jerry Rawlings. If we want to periodisize the history of Ghana, it would be, pre-1956 (which is split in many ways based on colonial and pre-colonial periods), 1956-1966 (which is in part covered by the page on the Monarchy period and could be split by pre- and post-monarchy), 1966-1979 (which could be split by NLC and NNRC rule), 1979-2001 (which currently would be the page on Rawlings, although it could get its own history of Ghana section), and 2001-present. The article is based on a public domain source and has received minor edits since creation. The History of Ghana article uses a similar source for the section on the same. The two articles should be cleaned up and the more general article trimmed a bit, but that doesn't make this article inappropriate. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Smmurphy: But why only these years? Why not any other years? Your argument makes no sense. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking why there is a separate article for these years and not other years?Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Why these totally arbitrary years and no others? Why should this content not just be merged back into the overall History of Ghana article? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I described why these years are not arbitrary, I'm sorry that you think that they are. I don't know why there isn't an article for all of the other periods of Ghanaian history, but there are two articles for two of its colonial periods. I think the reason the content has its own page is that the History of Ghana article is very long. Smmurphy^(Talk) 04:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- This is a badly structured article, but it is common in WP to have a general article, with a number of "main" sub-articles. 1966-79 is clearly not a random period, as it starts with a military coup and ends with Rawlings' takeover. It should be joined by articles on the Rawlings era in Ghana, and Post-colonial Ghana. The general article is much too long and should be trimmed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Looks like it is already covered in History of Ghana--Rusf10 (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 02:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep or possibly merge back to History of Ghana. One could make some argument that the corresponding section in the main article could be more summarized and this article cleaned up. I'm not convinced that outright deletion is the best response, except on at WP:TNT basis, and my cursory reading is that it isn't irredeemably bad. Mangoe (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see no reason why this article should be deleted. Yes, improve it but not delete. There is plenty of coverage from reliable sources. Further, I am very concerned about this systemic bias especially when it relates to Africa. How can we have History of the United Kingdom, History of the formation of the United Kingdom, Early modern Britain, Georgian era, and I can go on forever - all about one particular small western country (UK) - the size of a peanut, yet some wants to throw a fit about an era/period of Ghana's history (an African nation)? Let's stop this foolishness! Senegambianamestudy (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep AFD is not for cleanup or pointing out deficiencies in articles. Article is otherwise a valid sectioning of the parent article History of Ghana, per the information given by others which demonstrates it's not just arbitrary years. Much like History of the United States (1776–89), which starts with the US declaration of independence and ends with the ratification of the constitution, 2 important events in US history - this demonstrates dividing articles into more appropriate sub-articles is in line with community consensus, hell it's even suggested by WP:DETAIL! Nominator also has a history for frivolous nominations. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for pointing us to that article. I see that the nominator is very careless when it comes to nominating articles for deletion. This[1] surely is one of his greatest moments, and will go down in history as one of the worst nominations for Afd. I'm always concerned about those who do not edit much but simply driveby and tag or nominate articles for Adf. This is a silly nomination and evidently the nominator has a long history of doing this.Senegambianamestudy (talk) 06:28, 18 January 2018 (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.