Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiAfrica/Stubs/Kambwe massacre

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was:  Keep. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiAfrica/Stubs/Kambwe massacre

 * (Time stamp&#178; for bot to properly relist.) — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 09:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 15:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 15:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Empty skeleton page from December 2014. No sources nor discussion but the topic seems to be referenced or at least better at the WikiAfrica/Stubs/Karonga Wars draft and at the WikiAfrica/Stubs/Mlozi the Slaver. The other drafts seem at least plausible enough to work on while this can be reconsidered later for a spin-off article (plus there could be a bit of WP:NPOV issue with the title). Ricky81682 (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is something useful here.  I am finding stuff, but not reliable, on a Kambwe Massacre of slaves, dated 26th October 1887.  Wikipedia seems to be missing the information, which would belong at Karonga, third paragraph.  I think it is plausible, and am not worried by the title.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing about plausibility, I think rather the content could better be served by a more neutral name than "massacre" such as focusing on the wars or battles or the person. Any article being created would literally be a draft from scratch and this hasn't been touched in over 18 months. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It is a worthy draft, although I would have it merged as above. Massacre is definitely the right word.  1100 slaves lured, massacred, burned with crocodiles cleaning up.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a single unsourced sentence. Please be serious here and not just reflexively oppose. Any draft that would come out of this would literally be one step removed from creating this from scratch (and that's excluding the removal of the nonsense interwiki links and headers). If you want to take on that task, fine, userify it to your user page for whatever reason you want but otherwise there are already two pages on the same topic that already cite sources so why are you wasting this much time supporting keeping this sentence around? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe it is sourceable, either that or there is a very strange historical hoax at play. It is not a reflexive oppose, I spent fifteen minutes looking into the topic and the surrounding history, the full story is on facebook but it rings true.  In my books, that makes it good enough for a draft topic.  The topic comes from a remote part of the third world, it is hard to find sources online, but sources online is not a criteria for drafting.  No, I don't want to userfy it, it is already located suitably.
 * "there are already two pages on the same topic that already cite sources"? I don't know what you are talking about ...  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ... if you mean that this page could be well-merged to Draft:Mlozi_bin_Kazbadema, well that is not a reason for deletion. Talking "spinoff"s on drafts doesn't seem a productive activity if you are not working yourself on the drafts, and I am very sure the possible NPOV issue is no issue at all.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There is noting to merge. If i wanted to merge these drafts, I would do that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. If reliable sources are found, a new article can be started. There is nothing here worth keeping, nor anything to merge. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not true. That there was a massacre, and who orchestrated it, is verifiable and important information. Both this massacre and the slave trader are missing notable topics. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * None of which is reflected in this single sentence. If the other drafts are better served renamed or split or whatever (and that's assuming they go into mainspace), it would be better to just rename them than to argue to keep this one sentence draft in the hopes that someone will take this one draft along to mainspace for whatever bizarre reason. If you want to work on adding the content here, then do so but what is the point of keeping this around just because you like the name? WP:Requested articles exists as a place to keep track of names for articles that are useful, not empty drafts sitting around indefinitely. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The points you make that are valid speak to redirecting, not to deleting. By seeking to deleting, you are being destructive of other's place markers, at the very least, and are forcing them to respond on your timetable.  Why?
 * The Kambwe Massacre is a missing topic, and this deletion nomination seeks to make backward step. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirecting where then? There is no article on this topic. If you want to suggest that all these drafts be redirected around to each other and either (a) one and then all will be deleted as G7's or (b) something goes to mainspace and it's a bunch of double redirects to be bot fixed, fine but it's literally a single unsourced sentence. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You want to delete drafts for not having explicit sources? I don't think the community supports that, posts at WT:Drafts show that some poeple would hold DraftSpace to a much lower standard than that.  The drafts single sentence, and title, represent good ideas, and the ideas shouldn't be deleted for mere lack of included sources.  As I have indicated, sources exist.  It is an obscure history, 150 years ago deep in Afrika.  Both WikiAfrica/Stubs/Karonga Wars & Draft:Mlozi bin Kazbadema are much better looking drafts, mainspace-worthy in my opinion.  This massacre, definitely a massacre, should be mentioned in both.  But this does not mean that deletion is appropriate.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep or Merge. I don't have time to format this properly and add it to the article at the moment, but I found a reference from 1888: Murray's Magazine, vol. 4, p. 630. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 01:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 09:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's an incubation page for a wikiproject, so there's no reason it has to be sourced or developed on any particular timeline, and I'm not seeing compelling reason to delete it. --RL0919 (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2016 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.