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. Nom withdrawn - majority of discussion was keep based on improvements (non-admin closure) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Jefferson and slavery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This appears to be a school essay. I'd offer to fix the spelling and grammar, but given that all the content is already in Thomas Jefferson, and the various articles on slavery, the American Civil War, Sally Hemmings and probably others that I have missed, this is just a synthesis of other Wikipedia articles, and I'm not sure it belongs in the encyclopaedia. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Withdraw nomination. I have been persuaded by the work done on the article that this is not a content fork but a valid split of a notable topic from the main Thomas Jefferson article, which is too long to contain it. Not sure if this can now be speedy closed - I'll leave that to an admin--Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The same new user also created George Washington and slavery. I suggest it gets nominated as well. Both articles seem to be unnecessary content forks from the respective main pages. — Rankiri (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually he didn't, that's an older article. However, you are correct, either both should go, or both should stay (and this one be improved). SeeWikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Washington and slaveryElen of the Roads (talk) 22:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinions on the matter. These are my first attempts at adding to these issues. In my opinion they have been very conservative. I do not take offense to your "school essay" comment. If you actually believe that the quality of the message needs work, then by all means delete the article and other article additions. I would be more then glad to delete them myself. I know that you want the best on Wiki. I do too. I have made attempts to change the article. The article is completely open and I was hoping others would add to the article. The choice is yours to make. I thought this was an open format, yet, to be candid, it seems there are allot of strict guidelines with these articles. I appreciate Wiki allowing myself and others to make contributions. (Cmguy777 (talk) 23:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

"School essay" wasn't intended to be rude - it would be a rather good school essay. But it doesn't sound encyclopaedic, and if you want to create other articles I think you would benefit from someone beta reading your work for spelling and grammar. Some people struggle with language - doesn't mean they are any less intelligent than folks who don't.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How long does this deletion process take place? (Cmguy777 (talk) 23:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• Generally no less than seven days. You may find additional information on Wikipedia's Deletion Policy, How to discuss an AfD and Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. — Rankiri (talk) 23:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge any useful content to Thomas Jefferson -- It is well known that early presidents from the south were slave owners. The subject is thus a significant one, but it is already covered in the main article. An alternative might be to summarise the secion in the bio article, and to merge that section's present content here. However, that solution usually only needs to eb adopted when the parent article beocmes too long. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't The parent aricle at the point where further expansion is unwarranted? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23

49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

In my page I was trying to be objective as possible. I believe slavery to be a very important issue, that is why I started a new page in the first place, because I thought more discussion was needed and more facts, such as the amount of slaves Jefferson owned from his 21st birthday and at the time of his will. I also thought Sally Hemming issue needed more discussion, especially the part about alledged children. I wrote in the discussion that a new page should be started. I thought the original Jefferson page was running too long. George Washington has a separate page on Slavery. My attempt was to follow the same format. <Cmguy777 (talk) 23:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)>[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a discussion forum.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion takes place on the talk pages of articles: "I wrote in the discussion". Discussion is a synonym for the text of the article: "more discussion was needed and more facts", "issue needed more discussion". Why, even your contribution is part of the discussion now. I think you're looking very narrowly at 777s use of the word. Anarchangel (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't believe that the two articles on Jefferson and Washington have the same issues and that the decision on one effects the decision on the other. After all, there is an important article Abraham Lincoln on slavery that has existed for a long time. I have made my comments on Washington (for retaining the article) at the appropriate place. On Jefferson, I certainly think the subject matter merits its own article -- his feelings and comments on the subject span the time period from the colonial era through the 1820s and the Missouri Compromise. There is no room for expanding the main Jefferson article further on the issue of slavery and an aricle on the subject is certainly warranted -- whether the current article should be deleted rather than edited I will leave to others, but at some point an article on the subect should be written. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I am in agreement. This was just an attempt for a separate page on slavery. I have been incorperating elements of this page into the Orginal Thomas Jefferson page about Sally Jennings. You can read my contribution. The only other thing I want to contribute about Jefferson is to know how he inherited slaves from his father, increased the amount of slaves and apparently decreasing the amount of slaves in his estate. Also the statement he made about stopping the slave trade reads like a 21 century press statement. He knew how to communicate with people. I have deleted two contributions I made to the George Washington and Slavery issue. I know this is not a discussion format. However, not everything that has occured in History is written on stone. Things can be debatable.

(Cmguy777 (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I have made changes to the page. I have deleted anything that could be considered opinion and/or unpublished synthesis. I would appreciate any feedback. Has anyone reviewed the page recently? If the page is kept I would incorperate any information from the main Thomas Jefferson page to make the page larger. Any suggestions? Can I bring in information from the main Thomas Jefferson section? {Cmguy777 (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)}[reply]

I have continued to refine the page. I have made the page chronological and have gotten rid of anything the shows opinion. I am not making any conclusions with the facts and/or unpublished synthesis. I have also incorperated valuable information from the Thomas Jefferson main page. I would like to put in the information about Sally Hemings from the main page on Thomas Jefferson. This page is vastly improved. Please remember, this is my first attempt with Wikipedia. Please keep this page. Sincerely, {Cmguy777 (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)}.[reply]

Comment. Come to think of it, if the bulk Thomas Jefferson and slavery's content can be considered encyclopedic, Thomas Jefferson (116KB long) would definitely benefit from such a split. From WP:split: if an article becomes too large...it is recommended that a split is carried out... A guideline for article size is... >100 KB almost certainly should be divided. — Rankiri (talk) 19:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is appropriate to have slavery in both pages, the main one and this one. This page focuses on the time line of slavery, trying to put things in perspective. I modeled this page after the George Washington page. I deleted all opinions and am trying to make it as encyclopedic as possible, with just facts. I believe the page to be better then before. I hope it does not get deleted. There is so much on the main Thomas Jefferson page. That was the initial reason for the spit. As the page is now, Rankiri, do you feel it should be deleted? {Cmguy777 (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)}[reply]

Looks like I am getting help! I appreciate all the help I can get. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmguy777 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone wrote a new solid intro. That is good. I plan on putting in information about Sally Hemings with a chronological format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmguy777 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, given the length of the Thomas Jefferson article, i would like to see migration of material there to this article, (and potentially for his other growing sections). the subject is notable given the many printed sources on this topic. google:thomas jefferson slavery Pohick2 (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - perfectly good, notable, NPOV topic, with dozens of good sources, which is split from a large main article. Literally hundreds of scholarly articles have been hashed out about the man on the Nickel's ambivalence towards slavery. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate everyones input and the continual progress of this page. More can be done and is being done. It would be good if the "deletion" and other front tags can be removed from this page to show validity. {Cmguy777 (talk) 16:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)}[reply]

the deletion tag will be removed by the closing admin here. You can remove the other tags as long as you state clearly on the talk page why you are removing them (ie you think that the issue has been dealt with)Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I can put that in the discussion page and my talk page. The page has been expanding with good information. {Cmguy777 (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)} I will also put in the main talk page as well. {Cmguy777 (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)}[reply]

• Keep per WP:SPLIT Anarchangel (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep now that my only concern about WP:SYN has been addressed. Wperdue (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]

Has the deletion tag been removed yet? I wanted to remove the other tags. {Cmguy777 (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• My vote is Keep, as I think Jefferson had a unique relationship to slavery. It is deserving of an article, as there are many books by highly respected and noted historians on the topic. Gosox5555 (talk) 03:00, 12 July 2009 (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.