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. Randykitty (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Lynchings of the Frenches of Warsaw[edit]

The Lynchings of the Frenches of Warsaw (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)

An isolated event from old newspapers, with no historical, legal, or otherwise consequences, and no modern attention. Shall we start digging old newspapers and will wikipedia with oldtime news without discrimination? Staszek Lem (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Once notable, always notable. Clearly, those in 1876 believed this horrific event to be notable, for there to be so much coverage of it (8 references listed, so far, including Indiana, Ohio, and Virginia newspapers, which qualifies as national coverage). While lynchings were widespread, they were far from normal, since their crimes shocks the conscience, just as ISIS did with their beheadings. Lynchings are a stain on the moral superiority of the KKK, and other racist groups in America. By slaying extrajudicially, with mob justice, the Klan turned what could have been tried in a court of law, into another crime of passionate racial hatred. Since lynchings are a special way for racist whites to murder, and with the many other sources separate from the subject material, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", this makes this article suitable for a stand-alone article, and therefore, should be kept.WG:GNG Sarahrosemc (talk) 13:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Mentioned in the 1990 book Racial Violence in Kentucky, 1865-1940: Lynchings, Mob Rule, and "Legal Lynchings" (ISBN 9780807115367, published by LSU Press). But it is just barely that, a mention. These were horrible crimes, but I simply don't see any evidence that individual lynchings meet notability standards absent wider attention or legal, social, or historical impacts. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Horrible as this sounds, lynchings were very common in that commonwealth back in the late 1800s. I don't see how this one was notable, except that a husband and wife were victims. Weak delete. Bearian (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George Wright (in the book I mentioned above) found this worth mentioning only because it was a lynching of blacks in retribution for the murder of another black (where the majority of lynchings were ostensibly predicated by crimes against whites). But even then, he didn't consider this a unique situation, and gave it merely a passing mention. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - WP:NTEMP, people: once notable, forever notable. This was discussed in sources in the 1800s, and as such it meets WP:GNG. The event has been discussed by XX century sources, which shows WP:PERSISTENCE. That there were other similar events is irrelevant for notability. Notable does not mean unique.--cyclopia^speak! 16:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right. So often now I see this reasoning that "notable" equals "uncommon" or "exceptional". But perfectly ordinary things can be quite notable, if people have considered them important—worthy of note, notable. And very unusual things can be non-notable, if no one cares about them. Everyking (talk) 02:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per reasoning of Cyclopia. And actually lynching were not that normal, at least according to one history I read some years ago. One major object of an encyclopedia is to be able to look something up when one finds a bare mention of it is a book or other document. Using Squeamish Ossifrage's theory we would have very few modern music articles. --Bejnar (talk) 22:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is not, however, the standard by which we judge notability and inclusion. Bare mentions are not "significant coverage" in the sense of WP:N. The 1876 coverage is problematic as concerns WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEVENTS. It is absolutely true, as cyclopia observed, that notability does not expire; in Wikipedia's sense of the term, this event, while tragic, was never notable. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable then, notable now. Read what Cyclopia wrote. Everyking (talk) 02:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Folllowing material copied from a very confusing AFD started on a cut and paste copy of this article at Lynchings of Benjamin and Mollie French. Dennis started the new AFD and I have added the "Delete" to the start of his nomination comment. Meters (talk) 05:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nkyviews.com makes up the bulk of the sources, which is a self-published website owned and maintained by one person. The other cite, a book, is searchable on Google, and when I searched for the "fact" in the lead "best nigger in the country", I got nothing. The sourcing is so radically subpar, I can't see how we can publish this. I would also note that lynchings were (unfortunately) common and this hasn't differentiated itself as particularly unique, enough so to pass WP:CRIME. Dennis 19:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Within minutes Dennis suggested deleting two of my articles, which I worked for hours on. Hey Dennis, did you even read this article, before suggesting to delete it? Sarahrosemc (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Mainly, I read the source material, which is problematic. Using self-published websites to prove the lynching of someone is very, very problematic. Don't take it personal, I just ran across the articles on new article patrol. Some articles get improved, some get tagged, some get nominated for deletion. I don't know you, so it can't be personal. Dennis 19:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Although the sources link to the self-published website, that site purports to accurately reproduce contemporary reports from secondary sources (newspapers). While I would prefer to see scans (rather than transcriptions) of the papers, I note that the author could have easily cited these sources without linking to the transcriptions on nkyviews.com, as Wikipedia does not require that sources be on-line. I feel that the sourcing is adequate. Pburka (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"He was, in the estimation of Warsaw whites, "the best nigger in the country." Page 98-99. George Wright's Racial Violence in Kentucky, 1865-1940. The sentence begins on the bottom right of page 98, and ends on the top left of page 99. It's there. That's one accusation down.

It's also notable because lynching is a very specific weapon used by racist whites against blacks. While there were bunches, it also wasn't as "common" as the above comments make you'd believe. Also, since it was happening in the Northern part of Kentucky, that suggests that racist vigilante justice was practiced all throughout the state. Being close to the Mason-Dixon line didn't wane the support of racial hatred, and may have in fact, intensified it. Sarahrosemc (talk) 22:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All I can tell you is that I looked at the book, and it wasn't there. Perhaps it is a different ISSN than what you listed, you didn't give the ISSN, but once it fails verification, the onus is on you to provide more information in the citation to it CAN be verified. It isn't enough to claim a cite, it has to be verifiable, via WP:V. Dennis 2¢ 22:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See http://books.google.com/books?id=QAL5c1vECVkC&pg=PA99#v=onepage&q&f=false. It's exactly where Sarahrosemc indicated. Pburka (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, consider speedy. Irrespective of the contents of the article, this is a direct fork of The Lynchings of the Frenches of Warsaw (note the plural), which was listed at AFD on the 23rd. If the earlier-created article is deleted at AFD, this would be eligible for a G4 speedy; if not, it is a duplicate fork, and eligible for A10 speedy. Recreating articles is not the way to avoid concerns raised in the deletion process. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Since both articles were created by the same user, it's not a fork. It's just a newbie mistake. I suggest speedily redirecting this title to the other. (The correct title should probably be something like Lynchings of Benjamin and Mollie French.) Pburka (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that Squeamish Ossifrage's delete was for the duplicate copy of the page, which is now just a redirect to this page. Pburka (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. So... make a Lynchings of Benjamin and Mollie French, and have them link to both? I'll read on this, and compile them somehow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahrosemc (talk • contribs) 00:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So I made the Lynchings of Benjamin and Mollie French page, and had the others redirect to there. I kept the articles of deletion part at the top, and it directs to here. The article was poorly titled. Grammatically didn't seem right. It's better now. Sarahrosemc (talk) 00:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I take offense that just because I wanted a better titled article, that I'm accused of some type of fraud... That's your mindset; not mine. Folks can vote against others for the most arbitrary of reasons, and I didn't want my article to be flunked out of existence just because of the title. I still believe Lynchings of Benjamin and Mollie French is a better title, and hope that we can change it, after this page passes, which I'm not sure if that can be done. I have a right to blank out my own page, and it wasn't to avoid this discussion, because I would welcome this discussion on the Lynchings of Benjamin and Mollie French page as well.

Also, this article passes WP:NOTTEMPORARY WP:CRIME WP:INDEPTH WP:LASTING. While not an infinite supply of sources, compared to today's events, for an 1800s event, there's many different newspapers that printed about this incident. The lasting effects of a lynching is clearly one that racist whites used to intimidate all Black folks, not just the ones being lynched. Lynchings are significant because, first of all it's a murder, and second, it's a murder weapon used by sick oppressors, to not only punish those who are killed, but to scare the entire Black population into submission, so they wouldn't look up into white people's eyes, whenever they walked down the street. Reconstruction would fail in 1875 with the compromise between the Tilden v. Hayes election. So Benjamin and Mollie French were murdered 4 years after the Freedman's Bureau was disbanded, and only 1 year after the Federal Troops stopped occupying the South. Once Reconstruction failed, America would continue in the Nadir Era of Race Relations up until the 1950s. Sarahrosemc (talk) 06:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)NorthAmerica1000 23:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hatting the procedural close for the other AfD, a bit out of context here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Procedural close  Had the nomination been provided the time, more than 36 minutes, to have the research that would have prepared the community for a deletion discussion, it would reflect the edit comment in the first and only edit made before nomination, "changed title from Lynchings to Lynching", and rather than WP:BITE the new editor, would have provided to the new editor the technique for moving an article from one title to another.  Since this article is already at AfD with the older "Lynchings" title, a 2nd AfD is confounding.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

End of material copied from the second AFD (started on the cut and paste copy) Meters (talk) 05:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that Unscintillating's "procedural close" was for the second AFD, on the cut and pasted copy of the article, not for this AFD. Meters (talk) 07:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have procedurally closed the second AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lynching of the Frenches of Warsaw. !Votes and comments from that discussion have been moved herein (diff1, diff2). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. With multiple references this easily passes WP:GNG, and the mention in a book demonstrates its lasting significance. The fact that this well-researched article is up for deletion is troubling to me. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep Notability does not expire — I was sharing an interesting text with some friends recently which they enjoyed too. It was written by Cato the Elder over two thousand years ago. In any case, it seems easy to find more modern sources such as this and that. Andrew (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep historical. seems to have sources. U.S. civil rights history should be preserved since much of it was covered up --of course it will be hard to find dozens of sources for the less well-known events. Cramyourspam (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The purpose of the notability rules is so that editors aren't tempted to create articles about subjects that cannot be properly sourced. I don't agree with, "Once notable, always notable." But we should be building the encyclopedia up, not deleting well-sourced material. Claimsworth (talk) 03:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per, of all things, WP:NOTNEWS (which is a way of articulating the persistence-of-coverage part of WP:EVENT). These sources are mostly from a couple of days after it happened; it gets a brief mention in the Wright source as an example of a broader principle. We could mention this in a broader article on lynching, which is basically what Wright does. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notability is not temporary. sourced well, easily passes GNG,--BabbaQ (talk) 23:09, 8 October 2014 (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.