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 no consensus. No consensus about whether to keep, merge (including where to) or keep. The latter options can continue to be discussed on the talk page.  Sandstein  16:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

National Slave Memorial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

This unreferenced article is about an unremarkable proposal. There's not enough material on the subject to create (and cite) a reasonably sized article. | ^help_dןǝɥ | 15:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Unreferenced, eh? I didn't know that one link is not a reference. Regardless, there is material out there that could at least expand the article a bit more. Also, I find it hard to believe that this is an unremarkable proposal, as many of the monuments (and frankly almost everything) in that city have been built due to persistence, with many things not surrounding their first proposal. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we might as well nuke the Adams Memorial page, as it to is short and unreferenced, possibly unremarkable as well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is a proposed memorial that got no traction. There was some news coverage at the time but no sustained coverage indicating that the proposal has had no lasting effect or impact. -- Whpq (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Merge with Washington, D.C. or some other appropriate related article, maybe into the History or Architecture sections. It's difficult to attain notability on its own as a proposal but the fact that there is Google News coverage going back a quarter of a century, indicating genuine interest in such a project that gets it too close to notability to throw away. The links and text there now would combine into a good single sentence which the editors of the new article can decide whether they want to expand or delete. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 05:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - How is there a quarter century of news coverage? This proposal is from 2003. -- Whpq (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops, the 1987 Google News hit is for a National Slave Memorial in Baltimore. Well, in that case I could go either way - merge a sentence mentioning it into the DC article, or delete it. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 01:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge- It is currently just a proposal and should it be implemented, a new article can be created.Ankh.Morpork 16:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Whpq. If the memorial got no traction or coverage beyond some short-term news stories, there is no basis for an article. Merging with Washington D.C. does not strike me as viable, since an article on a major city will become burdened with irrelevant information if it starts mentioning all sorts of things that aren't there, but merely proposed without going anywhere. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with National Museum of African American History and Culture based on the last entry in the Google Scholar search page Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm assuming you are referring to this where it is a one line mention that the museum was favoured over the memorial proposal. That really just seems like adding trivia to an article. -- Whpq (talk) 21:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No not trivial. As the news stories and scholarly references make clear, its part of the story about how the early 21st century United States attempts to deal with this part of its past in the present and for the future. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The news coverage makes the memorial a news event. The academic coverage is a single line -- one line only in one paper. I'd have to scour the news coverage, but I don't recall that there was coverage in the news indicating that the museum was chose in favour of the memorial as stated in the academic paper. So to me, that's a rather tenuous link between the museum and the memorial. And as for it being a "part of the story about how the early 21st century United States attempts to deal with this part of its past in the present and for the future", I failed to see any such analysis of that in the single line of the academic paper. For all we know, the proposal failed to pass because the other politicians simply hated the guy who brought it forward. -- Whpq (talk) 12:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The news commentary is about both the fact of the legislation, its supporters, and the issue of propriety. The scholarly commentary is about the fact of the legislation and what happened to it within the context of the purpose of the memorial. The matter is the subject of multiple RS and is thus notable within Wikipedia standards (also, as a matter of fact, it is mentioned in the scholarship more than once). The fact that there are multiple RS is not surprising for legislation on this matter. This being a deletion discussion, the fact that it is notable is the salient point (how we treat that notability by merger or keep - and improve - is the issue) but the unsourced points raised for deletion are rebutted by the fact of multiple RS. The RS show that it has been remarked upon (thus it is remarkable); it has gone somewhere in the RS (thus there is traction).Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was primarily about the target article for the recommendation of the merge. None of what you have said justifies merging to the museum article. -- Whpq (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2012 (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.