Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White slave trade to North 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 speedy delete by with reason "A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Indentured servitude in the Americas"  (non-admin closure)  &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 02:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

White slave trade to North America

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

PROD rejected, so off to AFD. This is basically the same article that was turned into a redirect a few days ago. I don't see how anything is changed. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as nominator. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much implied in the nomination. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 21:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete per WP:A10: duplication of the topic of Indentured servitude in the Americas. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 21:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per WP:CSD. Duplicates Indentured servitude in the Americas, specifically the 'North America' section. The article is almost entirely original research with useless references to entire books.- MrX 21:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * DELETE Most sources say there was no trade in white slaves to the Americas.  There was indentured labour, which encompassed Eng Scots and others as well.  Indentured labour and slavery are not the same, regardless of how bad conditions may have been.  Calling indentured servitude "slavery" is a way to push a POV and is contrary to most historical opinion.  Not encyclopedic. This article is changing an accepted definition to make a point. Content could merge, but I get the impression from the prev. AfD that defenders want to keep the title more than the content.Pincrete (talk) 22:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not delete: This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... (this article is about a subject which the Indentured servant article does not properly cover. Many were taken forcefully or cheated, and used as slaves. It is not a copy of the previus article, read it. The article has two good sources, one of the from a prominent institution, namely New York University) Olehal09 (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.