Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slave insurance in america

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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 06:14Z

[edit] Slave insurance in america

Slave insurance in america (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Reads like an essay. Also has POV issues. Real96 04:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Definitely reads like an essay, especially like an essay full of errors! --Nevhood 04:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, unsalvagably incoherent. Gazpacho 07:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I hope someone who wants to keep this is going to research and rewrite it, because there's nothing here to keep. Gazpacho 17:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Reparations against modern companies for who directly benefited from or were complicit in exploitation and slavery are an interesting issue with continuing relevance (I believe Chicago recently declared that they would not do business with JP Morgan until they came clean). As best I can tell, 19th century insurance records are being used to establish such a link; except the third paragraph, which seems to have no relevance whatsoever. If the article can be repurposed to explain clearly the historical interest and the modern relevance, this would seem notable. It may, however, be necessary to discard the current version. Eldereft 10:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, it may not be the theme, but the article really needs some work if kept. Maybe deleting and recreating at a later point in encyclopedic fashion would be the best way forward. Alf^Photoman 12:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, albeit somewhat weakly. I think that the topic of insurance policies on slaves is one that can support an article. The text now here is hard to follow and needs cleanup, but I do not think it is totally useless to someone who wants to improve it, or needs to be wiped from the history. If kept, it should move to Slave insurance in the United States. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• I've begun some basic cleanup on the article, which right now focuses on California legislation, which is apparently unique. Some more information on the contents of the policies themselves might be of interest, and there are some leads there in the California Dept. of Insurance websites. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep agreed w/ Smerdis. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, Smerdis of Tlön is pretty convincing Alf^Photoman 17:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Move As the title is at the least improperly capitalized, but the subject itself is reasonably notable, and if it needs a serious rewrite, tag it as such. Mister.Manticore 18:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Did some general cleanup of grammar and spelling. Found 1100 Google hits on "slave insurance" America including Insurance Journal , USA Today , Findlaw on the Cal legislation , The Nation, Cal Dept of Insurance , Chicago Sun-Times , and additional sources. This meets any reasonable requirement at WP:N or WP:ATT. The article still needs lots of rewrite incorporating these or other good sources. Edison 20:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep great research. It gives me an idea. Why not have every new article nominated for deletion! Then every article will become really well sourced! David Spart 21:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

if you have a sturdy helmet you could propose it as policy. But you've got something there Alf^Photoman 13:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Edison and Smerdis. Also, a request: please do criticise articles with "has POV issues" without actually stating what you think they are. Thank you, Black Falcon 23:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --MaNeMeBasat 16:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable enough per above statements. Captain panda In vino veritas 22:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with something else This is a strange article, since it largely talks of recent California legislative activity about archives, rather then the apparent subject of insuring the slave-owner's property in his enslaved workers. Is this a fork from soemthing else, or is it is news item resulting from an archival discovery? Peterkingiron 01:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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.