454:
context to one another, and that makes it difficult to grasp the overall subject due to both length and organization (points of contact between subtopics made for repetitious material). I undertook to create an outline of the overall subject, with enough meat for each section to make it useful in a standalone way, and to create "main articles" for each reduced subtopic. LLL was one of those. I haven't looked at the subject in quite some time, so it may be a mess again, but the breakout was reasonable then, and should in theory be no different now. All of the material could be part of the central G-S article, but it is more appropriate to break it out and but high down the central article. If you disagree about the disability of LLL as a standalone topic, then you would be forced to agree to move all is content back to three central article, and that decreases the treatment of city the main topic and this subtopic.
546:...but to me, it cuts both ways – it can be an argument to keep and completely rewrite, or an argument to completely start over from scratch. If any existing text or sourcing information is helpful for the complete rewrite, then by all means keep it in some form, to facilitate the rewrite and not waste time and effort. At the moment, the existing text isn't doing any harm, either.
342:
Would draft-ifying be a reasonable AtD here if the goal were to preserve the existing content temporarily outside of main article space so it can be merged in as-appropriate (instead of having something that will later be reintroduced to article space on its own)? My only concern with a merge is that
453:
I don't think the suitability of Glass-Steagal is up for debate. IIRC, I created the related set of articles, including this one (LLL). At the time, the main article was a hot mess. Due to the complexity of the subject, there were very large sections that were difficult to understand, especially in
260:
This seems like an unneeded content fork from the main article that was done because the main page had become an excessively long personal dissertation on the Glass-Steagall Act. There's no reason for each of these topics to be covered independent of the main article.
214:
497:. If you need help with editing the article, you can always canvass the relevant WikiProjects. Or, as I suggested earlier, your best bet may be to pursue this as a Proposed Merge (and notifying all the WikiProjects for input).
144:
139:
148:
131:
473:
if there ever were one. I think you're correct that having that much content on a single article is unreadable, and I honestly don't think anyone is going to spend the time making this usable (though maybe I'm wrong).
208:
468:
I'm fine if this is how consensus turns out; my deletion argument is definitely about the forking being inappropriate and not the notability. But at the same time, this seems like a very good candidate to
429:
Striking previous !vote as upon further consideration, as well as the comments from
Dylnuge above and from Dovid below, I think this AfD nomination would be better served as a "Proposed merge" discussion.
310:
135:
254:
127:
79:
515:
and with the rarity that a TNT-based suggestion gets through, but I stand by the argument I laid out in my nom. I honestly don't see how having this page makes the wiki better.
229:
196:
403:
555:
521:
506:
480:
463:
439:
416:
397:
349:
337:
319:
306:
290:
73:
171:
190:
118:
186:
302:
103:
264:
The normal ATD here would be to merge it back into the main article, but this page is rife cleanup-related issues that make that difficult to do. It's
376:
page – I understand the logic now but in any case if that is where we are directing all the traffic from searches for "Glass–Steagall Act", then the
236:
23:
298:
250:
202:
280:
applies. It's not clear to me that any of this is worth salvaging, and it seems it'd be far easier to start from scratch in expanding
276:
and in doing so dropped the full cites (the sources for
Wilmarth, Renicke, Benston, Fein, Peach and Perkins are all missing). I think
71:
98:
91:
17:
407:
385:
377:
369:
175:
112:
108:
281:
246:
60:
580:
47:
551:
502:
494:
435:
393:
576:
43:
380:
page definitely needs improvement.) Merging this particular sub-article with what is essentially the
69:
333:
222:
269:
455:
547:
498:
431:
389:
265:
87:
36:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
575:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
364:
What a confusing set of article names and redirects. (It took me a long time to work out why
42:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
373:
328:
necessary contest to the article about the act, but most of this is likely TNT'able anyway
459:
64:
272:), the citations are a mess, probably because someone deleted sections that were extreme
329:
406:, but yeah, I agree with all of this. I'm a bit worried merging it will just make the
543:
512:
490:
470:
277:
516:
486:
475:
411:
344:
314:
285:
273:
165:
24:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Glass-Steagall: legislation, limits and loopholes
388:, and I agree that much of the content could be deleted anyway.
571:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
268:, appears to be a personal essay on the Glass-Steagall act (
245:
This is one in a "series" of pages that were split off of
161:
157:
153:
221:
384:page will hopefully trigger a further clean-up of
255:Aftermath of the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act
128:Glass–Steagall: legislation, limits and loopholes
80:Glass–Steagall: legislation, limits and loopholes
50:). No further edits should be made to this page.
583:). No further edits should be made to this page.
297:Note: This discussion has been included in the
343:I feel like it will take substantial effort.
235:
8:
119:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
404:Talk:Glass–Steagall_Legislation/Series_name
296:
7:
402:Some of the history is captured on
31:
251:Decline of the Glass–Steagall Act
301:lists for the following topics:
284:if that page is missing detail.
104:Introduction to deletion process
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
493:, especially the section on
94:(AfD)? Read these primers!
600:
408:Glass–Steagall legislation
386:Glass–Steagall legislation
378:Glass–Steagall legislation
370:Glass–Steagall legislation
282:Glass-Steagall legislation
247:Glass-Steagall legislation
61:Glass-Steagall legislation
573:Please do not modify it.
311:United States of America
249:in 2013; the others are
74:15:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
39:Please do not modify it.
556:11:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
522:04:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
507:04:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
481:03:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
464:01:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
440:01:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
417:05:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
398:05:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
350:20:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
338:15:35, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
320:07:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
291:07:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
489:Please have a read of
176:edits since nomination
92:Articles for deletion
372:page instead of the
410:page worse though.
511:I'm familiar with
382:Glass–Steagall Act
366:Glass–Steagall Act
542:I'm a big fan of
451:Against deleting:
368:redirects to the
322:
109:Guide to deletion
99:How to contribute
22:(Redirected from
591:
519:
478:
414:
374:1933 Banking Act
347:
317:
299:deletion sorting
288:
240:
239:
225:
169:
151:
89:
41:
27:
599:
598:
594:
593:
592:
590:
589:
588:
587:
581:deletion review
517:
495:WP:SURMOUNTABLE
476:
412:
345:
315:
286:
182:
142:
126:
123:
86:
83:
55:The result was
48:deletion review
37:
29:
28:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
597:
595:
586:
585:
567:
566:
565:
564:
563:
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
531:
530:
529:
528:
527:
526:
525:
524:
447:
446:
445:
444:
443:
442:
422:
421:
420:
419:
356:
355:
354:
353:
352:
243:
242:
179:
122:
121:
116:
106:
101:
84:
82:
77:
53:
52:
32:
30:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
596:
584:
582:
578:
574:
569:
568:
557:
553:
549:
545:
541:
540:
539:
538:
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
523:
520:
514:
510:
509:
508:
504:
500:
496:
492:
488:
484:
483:
482:
479:
472:
467:
466:
465:
461:
457:
452:
449:
448:
441:
437:
433:
428:
427:
426:
425:
424:
423:
418:
415:
409:
405:
401:
400:
399:
395:
391:
387:
383:
379:
375:
371:
367:
363:
361:
357:
351:
348:
341:
340:
339:
335:
331:
327:
324:
323:
321:
318:
312:
308:
304:
300:
295:
294:
293:
292:
289:
283:
279:
275:
271:
267:
262:
258:
256:
252:
248:
238:
234:
231:
228:
224:
220:
216:
213:
210:
207:
204:
201:
198:
195:
192:
188:
185:
184:Find sources:
180:
177:
173:
167:
163:
159:
155:
150:
146:
141:
137:
133:
129:
125:
124:
120:
117:
114:
110:
107:
105:
102:
100:
97:
96:
95:
93:
88:
81:
78:
76:
75:
72:
70:
68:
67:
62:
58:
51:
49:
45:
40:
34:
33:
25:
19:
572:
570:
548:Cielquiparle
499:Cielquiparle
450:
432:Cielquiparle
390:Cielquiparle
381:
365:
359:
358:
325:
263:
259:
244:
232:
226:
218:
211:
205:
199:
193:
183:
85:
65:
56:
54:
38:
35:
270:WP:NOTESSAY
209:free images
266:WP:BLOATED
66:Ritchie333
577:talk page
330:Oaktree b
44:talk page
579:or in a
307:Politics
172:View log
113:glossary
46:or in a
518:Dylnuge
487:Dylnuge
477:Dylnuge
413:Dylnuge
346:Dylnuge
316:Dylnuge
309:, and
287:Dylnuge
215:WP refs
203:scholar
145:protect
140:history
90:New to
544:WP:TNT
513:WP:ATA
491:WP:ATA
471:WP:TNT
278:WP:TNT
187:Google
149:delete
456:Dovid
360:Merge
326:Merge
274:WP:OR
230:JSTOR
191:books
166:views
158:watch
154:links
59: to
57:merge
16:<
552:talk
503:talk
460:talk
436:talk
394:talk
334:talk
253:and
223:FENS
197:news
162:logs
136:talk
132:edit
303:Law
237:TWL
170:– (
554:)
505:)
462:)
438:)
396:)
336:)
313:.
305:,
257:.
217:)
174:|
164:|
160:|
156:|
152:|
147:|
143:|
138:|
134:|
63:.
550:(
501:(
485:@
458:(
434:(
392:(
362:.
332:(
241:)
233:·
227:·
219:·
212:·
206:·
200:·
194:·
189:(
181:(
178:)
168:)
130:(
115:)
111:(
26:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.