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. Academic Challenger ( talk) 17:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC) reply

List of public statues of individuals linked to the Atlantic slave trade (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Nominating this article for deletion discussion because it is unnecessary (see Atlantic slave trade), limited in coverage, poorly formatted (the lists are in two different formats), incomplete (and may never be complete due to the very wide spread impact of the Atlantic slave trade), definitely overcategorization, too short, will quickly become obsolete (as statues are taken down on an almost daily basis), and also may be inciting illegal vandalism (I fear that this article may be used as a 'hit-list' for which statues to illegally vandalize next, for proof of this see the time at which the article was made, the topic of the article, the "see also" link to Iconoclasm, and the many external links to non-objective sites which argue in favor of conducting these illegal activities). Flyingfishee ( talk) 08:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC) reply

I'd also like to add the following reasons for deletion that probably should be considered in this discussion: WP:LISTN, WP:OR, WP:TOOSOON, WP:NPOV. I forgot to mention these in my first proposal but they've been brought up by other users.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep Just because you don't like something is not a reason for deletion, also how do you know how to use AfD for a brand new user account? Are you socking? Govvy ( talk) 09:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC) reply

  @ Govvy: I'm not sure if this is the right place to make this point, but I'm not a sockpuppet. I made my account (and my first edit) before this article was made. Also I used these three guides ( Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, Wikipedia:Deletion process, [ [1]]) to learn how to use AfD. Flyingfishee ( talk) 00:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep The topic seems perfectly valid and notable, with plenty of sources, so I don’t see a good case for deletion. Mccapra ( talk) 10:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep: Article was only recently created so it is understandable that it is short, many articles are at first created as stubs to be added to, original nomination also mentions being "limited in coverage", if List of Confederate monuments and memorials can exist then this has just as much a place on wikipedia. I do recognise this article may need to be split into separate articles if it becomes cumbersome though. Melias C ( talk) 12:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep. My response to Flyingfishee's arguments:

"unnecessary (see Atlantic slave trade)" – the theme of the Atlantic slave trade article are not the existing public statues.

"limited in coverage", "incomplete", "may never be complete due to the very wide spread impact" – the article has just started and can be expanded. We also have insects articles in Wikipedia although I doubt that Wikipedia will someday have an article for each of the more than one million species.

"poorly formatted" – not a reason for deletion, can be improved.

"statues are taken down on an almost daily basis" – I doubt this.

"Article may be used as a 'hit-list' for vandalization" – should not be a reason not to include it in Wikipedia.

-- Cyfal ( talk) 13:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep Seems a perfectly fine topic for a stand-alone list. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• KEEP No valid reason given to delete this. Perfectly valid topic and four of the five things listed have their own article. Dream Focus 13:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• delete or at least limit the scope, which at the moment is very broad. "Linked" is just too loose a word: I'm sure I'm somehow "linked" to the slave trade given that I have colonial ancestors who lived in North Carolina; likewise, virtually anyone with some connection to colonial exploration is so "linked". And it does read like a hit list, considering that a much more reasonable list would be of people involved directly in the slave trade. Mangoe ( talk) 15:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep - None of the justifications given in the nomination constitute a valid policy-based reason for deletion. They basically add up t0 WP:IDLI. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 18:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep and add a redirect from Statue hit list to there. Broken Segue 18:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment To be honest, I think the nominator's onto something with the AfD nom. We need to keep this article, but as it stands it's malformed - what this should reflect is not WP:OR of statues of people "linked" to the slave trade, but instead a reflection of the current event going on where society's looking at statues and removing problematic ones. For instance, at CfD, this would be deleted for being an overcategorisation. We need to rename this to something like "List of statues removed during the Black Lives Matter protests, 2020" and reformat the table so it's one giant table with a bunch of prose. I don't support keeping the article as-is, but it's so easily fixable it's not even worth voting to delete. SportingFlyer T· C 19:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC) reply

  SportingFlyer, We already have List of monuments and memorials removed during the George Floyd protests... Is that what you are suggesting? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC) reply

  @ SportingFlyer: I could see where the nominator was coming from, I fixed the article to be better, but got reverted, not one person wanted to help, even when I posted to ANI it was all cold doors. The article is in a terrible state, but the subject is still notable. Govvy ( talk) 19:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC) reply

  I'd probably suggest a merge with that article, to be honest. This topic's notable because it's a current event. The issue with this topic as it is, it's functionally original research, but the current event definitely lends itself to notability. I'm not sure this gets kept three weeks ago. There's notes that the inclusion criteria is vague on the talk page, along with the Wilberforce statement below - if that statue's not included this would be a WP:POV. I don't see any secondary sources discussing this topic as a whole, either, so it violates WP:LISTN. I think merging's probably the easiest way to salvage this, since I think it pretty clearly violates WP:OR and WP:LISTN and vague/overcategorisation criteria (which I know isn't for lists but am still mentioning it) as it stands. The fact the original nominator didn't bring up any of those issues hasn't helped the discussion, either. SportingFlyer T· C 20:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC) reply

  @ SportingFlyer: This is my first time nominating an article for deletion so I didn't consider those points ( WP:LISTN, WP:OR, WP:TOOSOON ( Indy beetle pointed this one out), and WP:NPOV). Can I edit my nomination (or comment on it) and add those points or is that not allowed? Also while I am in support of delete since I nominated this for deletion, I also think merge with List of monuments and memorials removed during the George Floyd protests would be an ok compromise (if needed we could also add information about statues not removed to the Atlantic slave trade article). Flyingfishee ( talk) 01:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply

  @ Flyingfishee: Given the number of comments so far, I wouldn't edit what you already have, but I personally don't see any issue with adding a supplemental comment underneath it. SportingFlyer T· C 01:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep Perfectly fine subject. The use of a table for each statue is less than optimal. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 19:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment. The article title may need some fine tuning. This statue is of a man very closely linked to the slave trade, but for obvious reasons no-one is proposing to pull it down; nor is anyone likely to. Narky Blert ( talk) 19:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC) reply

  Reply Narky Blert I tried to start a conversation about the title here Talk:List of public statues of individuals linked to the Atlantic slave trade#This this needs renaming., Govvy ( talk) 20:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep. This nomination is basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT. All the concerns mentioned by nom could be dealt with by normal editing and by discussion on the Talk Page. Narky Blert ( talk) 20:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• I think we should keep this article if we are going to completely overhaul it. The present content reeks of original research so much that I am not sure whether starting from scratch might be the best way to go forward. As far as I can tell, many of the statues listed are never brought up in this context and the references cited certainly do not indicate any such interpretations or concerns. The article should list only those statues which have been discussed in RS specifically in the context of the subject being involved in the slave trade. It should not list any statue of any person known to have taken any part in the slave trade. Surtsicna ( talk) 20:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• I tried to do that but got shut down, maybe you can help with the article. Govvy ( talk) 21:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Oppose article in current form, possible delete without prejudice for recreation - TOOSOON might apply here. There seems to be increasing discussion specific to the UK about statues of prominent men who made lots of money off of the slave trade. This article should stick close to sources which discuss both the statues and and the fact the persons they represents owned slaves, and on the wider phenomenon of slave traders having statues. Right now it seems to be an indiscriminate list of people who have one source mentioning a connection to the slave trade and another completely different source evidencing they have a statue. My position might be "minimalist", but otherwise I think we are getting ahead of ourselves. - Indy beetle ( talk) 22:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Merge Combine with Actions against memorials in the United Kingdom during the George Floyd protests. With the removal of monarchs from this list, it is now merely a list where action against a statue has been called for. We already have an article on that subject.-- Egghead06 ( talk) 06:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• If kept the article needs to be renamed and completely reworked. As stated above, "linked" is too vague a word to use. If someone made a statue of me it would be "linked" to the slave trade given that a few of my ancestors owned slaves before the Haitian Revolution. b uidh e 19:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep Obviously notable in light of current events, what other people choose to do with the content of the article is none of our concerns, we only need to make sure that article is neutral, accurate, and well-sourced. The article can certainly be improved on, but that is not a reason for deletion. Hzh ( talk) 10:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep per above. Quahog ( talk • contribs) 13:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep. There's a fuckton of sources about this. Maybe the precise focus or presentation needs work, but we're not throwing this one in the dock any time soon. Guy ( help!) 23:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete in current form. While it's definitely notable, the scope is way too broad and lends itself to WP:OR and WP:NPOV issues. I'd be much more partial to an article describing the current societal phenomenon of readressing who should be publicly commemorated with monuments, which would include a fully-sourced list of statues that have actually been brought up as problematic (i.e., notable public efforts to have a statue removed, or public actions in opposition to a statue). -- RickMorais ( talk) 23:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• I understand the keep arguments but the thing is that what we should keep about this is different content with a different title.— S Marshall  T/ C 10:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Agreed. This is notable not because secondary sources have covered the list comprehensively, but because it's functionally a current event, and that current event appears to be currently covered in another article. Nobody's addressed the WP:OR/ WP:LISTN problems, either. SportingFlyer T· C 16:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep This list can be edited to improve it. The general concept of the list is notable and according to stand alone list guideline that is enough for the existence of the list. Discussions about what to include and which items need to be removed can occur during usual content discussions. Sydney Poore/ FloNight User talk:FloNight 02:09, 19 June 2020 (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.