Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/African Origins Project


 * 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   delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

African Origins Project

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

non notable project, original research. Timergain (talk) 13:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and as WP:Crystal ball.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep until it is confirmed that the article is inconsistent with no original research rule. See http://aksw.org/SoerenAuer/HowToDescribeResearchProjectsOnWikipedia .  It suggests that posting research projects on Wikipedia is appropriate and does not itself constitute original research.  As for Crystal ball criteria for deletion, any research project necessarily describes an attempt to obtain results that are not currently available or documented in secondary sources.  Historical information in article is amply footnoted.  What is the past practice of Wikipedia in allowing entries on research projects? Note also that Timergain is sock puppet and blocked. Clionaut (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete as WP:Crystal ball.--Yopie (talk) 08:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Recommendation of Yopie not useful without explaining how criteria fits article.Clionaut (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, but split -- This article is not WP:OR, in that it is describing an academic research project. In that it is an advertisemnt for volunteers, it conceivably fails WP:ADVERT, but it does not blatantly do so.  Nevertheless, the article needs to be pruned substantially so that it deals only with the project.  The article contains significant material on the measures taken to enforce the Abolition of the Slave Trade, which would be much better in an free-standing article on that subject, rather than (as at present) a redirect to History of slavery, a bloated article dealing with all aspects of slavery, ancient and modern.  The closest we have is Atlantic slave trade, but that only carries the subject up to the abolition campaign]].  Abolitionism, which is the main article for that section goes on from the abolition of the trade to the campaigns for emancipation, their success, (almost bizarrely) the enslavement of Roma in what is now Roumania, and a list of when slavery was abolished in various countries.  Those last two sections would be much better in the "History of Slavery".  I, personally, would like to see either (1) Abolitionism renamed asAbolition of the Atlantic slave trade or (2) material from "abolitionism" moved that title, and combined with material from the article under discussion here.  I am not a speciualist on this subject and thus reluctant to undertake this myself.  Slavery is odious, and the slave trade even more so.  However, the abolition of the Atlantic slave trade and the emancipation of slaves the slaves resulting from it are different subjects and each deserves full treatment on its own.  This is in turn differs from Old World slavery, which can probably adequately be dealt with in the articleson slavery generally.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:ORG, WP:CRYSTAL. Ray  Talk 23:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I don;t think we usually do individual research projects, but this is an appropriate exception. It's very well known, and a large social enterprise. The background material should be removed; this is an encyclopedia article, not a stand-alone piece, and the description of the history goes elsewhere The one real problem I have with it is that the text and the edit history gives me the impression of having been written for some other purpose than here, imported, and then wikified, so a check needs to be made for copyvio  DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Seriously, we cannot keep an article with only 16 non-Wikipedia Google hits. This project fails WP:V, and none of the sources in the article are about or even mention the project. What is the grant number? Abductive  (reasoning) 07:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per DGG and Clionaut UltraMagnusspeak 10:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. "It's very well known". I thought we all knew not to make such arguments. I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources. The website isn't even launched. Most of the content is the background to the project rather than being about the project. It might turn out to be a notable project, but at the moment it probably just deserves a brief mention in another article about the slave trade to the Americas or the origin of African-American populations.  Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The only one of the 15 listed references that even mentions the article's subject is number 15, and that one is a press release which fails as a WP:RS for notability purposes. The project itself seems to not come close to meeting the threshold for notability with the current refs, and nether google news or google scholar comes up with anything under the name of this article.  Jim Miller  See me 15:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as not yet notable, but do not salt, as it could become so. Bearian (talk) 19:24, 2 November 2009 (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.