Nat Turner: Five years ago, the article was merged into Nat Turner's slave rebellion .  Talk:Nat Turner preserves the history of the merge discussion, which was closed as "consensus to merge" when there was no such consensus.  There is related subsequent discussion at Talk:Nat Turner's slave rebellion .   Editor LouMichel is rewriting the biographical article, which I applaud, but it should be incubated in a draft space until it is ready for publication.   Though I'm therefore recommending Draftify , I suspect some editors will also wish to use this AfD to revisit the merge discussion.  IgnatiusofLondon ( talk ) 21:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Nat Turner's slave rebellion#Turner's life with the option to WP:SIZESPLIT in the future if necessary.  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 22:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect in it's current form to Nat Turner's slave rebellion , but I am in support of a page for Nat Turner himself in the future.  Jebiguess ( talk ) 22:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or Split :  I think there are enough separate facts about the individual responsible for the famous rebellion to give him his own page.   For example here .   I don't know if that source meets Wikipedia's standards to be  reliable.  This source looks reliable.  There appears to be plenty of WP:RS on Google scholar .  -- David Tornheim ( talk ) 22:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)  and per LouMichel .  I would support a speedy close of this discussion as Keep or Split per the arguments made by Central and Adams and regular editing between the two articles takes place. -- David Tornheim ( talk ) 22:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [revised 00:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)] [ reply ] Keep -- No one will seriously argue that Nat Turner fails the GNG, so the only argument put forth by nom is that the present article is in lousy shape. AFD, as is well known, is not cleanup, so this is not a valid criterion for deletion. Central and Adams ( talk ) 22:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Response : This issue is not whether Turner merits an article but that a community consensus was made three years ago to merge two articles, making Nat Turner's slave rebellion the primary article. As a result better biographical content already exists but is elsewhere. If a discussion to split the main article had been started, existing content could have been used to populate Nat Turner , resulting is a C class rather than a stub. This is about process, not the merit of the subject. Rublamb ( talk ) 22:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That decision isn't binding on anyone now, and we're revisiting it. If the only question is whether it should still be merged that's a question for discussion on the talk page rather than at AFD. AFD is never about process. It's always about the notability (not merit) of the subject. Central and Adams ( talk ) 22:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Good point. I honestly do think the merger is the issue, but here wer are. Rublamb ( talk ) 22:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I came here following WP:DRAFTIFY , which suggests AfD to establish community consensus for draftification. It is an odd AfD nomination, but not inappropriate.  I don't expect anyone will seriously suggest deletion here. IgnatiusofLondon ( talk ) 00:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] IgnatiusofLondon I apologize for not having read your initial reasoning in the post. I thought it so absurd to make any argument that Nat Turner isn't notable, I responded to what I had assumed was a proposal to delete (or redirect).   That said, I would still rather the article stay live and the appropriate content split back to Nat Turner .  Drafts are hard to find and track, often ending up in some editor's space, making it hard to know how a phrase or deletion came into being prior to the publication of the draft. I think drafts are better for subjects that are only marginally notable, especially when there is really only one editor willing to work on the content.  Then when it is published, we know all of it is from that one editor from that date.  I very much doubt that is the case here. -- David Tornheim ( talk ) 01:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's alright; don't worry!  The reason why I initially stumbled across this minefield was through new page patrol.  If it were a new article, I would draftify; it isn't, so the process is AfD.  It seems like I've also, in doing so, rather spotlighted the debate between editors regarding reversing the 2019 merge that had already started.  I'm hoping there's enough enthusiasm, especially amid Black History Month, to get this topic the attention it deserves.  To be honest, if I were a gambling man, I would be willing to bet that article improvements will likely make the draftification question moot by the time the AfD closes, such that the discussion solely concerns keep versus redirect (revisiting the 2019 discussion and improper closure).  IgnatiusofLondon ( talk ) 01:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Nat Turner is an incredibly important figure in American History.  He was rated one of the 100 greatest African Americans in Molefi Kete Asante's well-known book.  He has had numerous articles, books, and movies made about him.  In fact, any in-depth discussion of US slavery and resistance to slavery will almost certainly discuss him.  There are numerous articles here on rebels, such as Pemulwuy , Emile Henry , Shields Green , and countless others.  Many of them are less famous than Nat Turner.  Even the Spartacus article starts with "Little is known about him beyond the events of the war, and surviving historical accounts are sometimes contradictory," so being mostly known for an uprising does not mean the biographical article should be deleted.  Wikipedia's guidelines on Notability say: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role."  No one would argue the rebellion was not significant, and it is obvious that Nat Turner played a significant role.  Why should we have pages for biographical films about Nat Turner and not a page for the person himself?  Pulitzer prize-winning books about Nat Turner have Wikipedia pages.  Films that are "based on the story of Nat Turner" have pages.  I have started this article again because there was never a proper consensus on merging it into the rebellion article (suggestions for a formal "request for comment" were apparently ignored, and few editors even new the merger was occurring or had a chance to respond).  The "consensus" that did supposedly occur did not properly follow Wikipedia's notability guidelines and deleted this page for a very notable historical figure.  I recommend that either the previous version of this article before the merger be restored, or we Draftify it and continue working on it to create a version that is distinct from the rebellion article.  LouMichel ( talk ) 22:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : The prior version of the Nat Turner article was merged in Nat Turner's slave rebellion and has been improved and expanded over three years by numerous editors.  It would be a step backward to simply restore the former article, and would also result in unnecessary duplicate content in Wikipedia.  A better solution is to move the appropriate section from Nat Turner's slave rebellion to here.  Rublamb ( talk ) 22:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Then do it.  This is a matter for ordinary editing.  Central and Adams ( talk ) 22:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Central and Adams .  I am a fan of boldly go, but this is not an ordinary sitution because there was a merger discussion, resulting turninh this article into a redirect.  As indicated above by another editor, we are now revisiting the issue.  Rublamb ( talk ) 23:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Rublamb If it was three years ago, then let's have an unmerge discussion.  I think you can already see significant support here for it.   Can you provide a link to the closed merger discussion so we don't have to look it up?  -- David Tornheim ( talk ) 23:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ David Tornheim : It was before my time, but here it is: Talk:Nat Turner#Proposing merger with Nat Turner’s slave rebellion .  I would be more than happy to take care of the split.  Rublamb ( talk ) 23:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for linking to this.  That was a terrible close IMO.  At the very least it should have been no consensus, but to me the oppose arguments are clearly convincing.  Central and Adams ( talk ) 23:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Central and Adams How do we re-open the decision (is there a formal "unmerge" process, or is our discussion here enough)?  Although I know it's not a deciding factor, it's Black History Month and deleting the page of a prominent Black historical figure (when this is often an underrepresented part of history) would be an unfortunate choice unless there's a very good reason.  I was honestly shocked that Nat Turner didn't have a page.  This seems like as good a time as any to revisit this.  LouMichel ( talk ) 23:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I believe the discussion is on the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nat_Turner LouMichel ( talk ) 23:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with this.  I am not an experienced or skilled Wikipedia editor, so I kindly request that those with the capacity help make the required changes.  And I thank @ Rublamb and others for their diligent work over the years on the Rebellion article.  LouMichel ( talk ) 23:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: I don't want to prejudge the AfD or box people into discussing particular questions, but looking at the comments already offered, I think it could provide some help to separate the different questions here: Nobody is seriously suggesting the article be deleted.  The subject clearly meets WP:GNG .  One question is whether Nat Turner should be a separate article ("keep") or a redirect ("redirect"/"merge") to Nat Turner's slave rebellion .  As evidenced on the talk pages, the 2019 merge discussion and improper closure have caused much confusion and unsettled debate on this question.  There is evidently an appetite to revisit this question.  If the article should be separate ("keep"), a follow-up question is whether it should be incubated from the article space ("draftify") while it is brought up to the necessary quality of a Wikipedia article.  Per WP:DRAFTIFY and community consensus , articles that are too old should not be draftified without prior consensus at AfD .   This is why I have dragged this article to AfD: not to propose its deletion, but to propose its draftification.  IgnatiusofLondon ( talk ) 01:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My opinion is that merging it with the other article does function as a kind of deletion.  As I'm sure I've already made clear, I think there should be separate articles (Nat Turner is significant enough to justify it, and there are enough sources about him that we can have both this and one on the rebellion).  Beyond that, I'm okay with "draftifying" it (as long as it doesn't get lost in limbo for an extended period of time).  But I think if someone is willing to move the relevant section/ content from the Rebellion article over to this one, as @ Rublamb mentions, that may be the best choice.  Then we can simply conduct further edits and expand it as needed.  Either way is fine by me; my main concern is keeping two separate articles.  LouMichel ( talk ) 02:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment -- I don't see any reason to draftify this.  Everyone agrees that it meets the GNG, so is worthy of an article.  The article's in bad shape now, but it's no different in this regard than tens of thousands of others.  It can be fixed by ordinary editing and we absolutely have the power in this discussion to reverse the redirect and merge.  Even an ordinary editor who was ready to write the article could do that.  Central and Adams ( talk ) 02:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Test did not succeed.  Improve it.  Nat Turner's slave rebellion effectively gives a biography: so let's write it up properly.  Keep .  Drmies ( talk ) 02:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and improve per Central and Adams, LouMichel, and Drmies.  A. Randomdude0000 ( talk ) 03:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep per DUH, with a TROUTing to IgnatiusofLondon for good measure.  - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- BeLucky ( talk ) 17:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep (nominator !vote change) : The article is in better shape, and the AfD discussion thusfar has suggested  (i) no appetite for draftification and  (ii) in my view, a perceptible consensus for a separate article ("keep" rather than "redirect").  I hope this outcome can encourage editors working on Nat Turner , and suffice to show community consensus to overturn the 2019–20 merge proposal and improper closure.   Unless other editors wish to continue using this AfD to debate the 2019–20 history (which does not seem to be the way this AfD discussion has evolved), I think the AfD can be safely closed as keep.  I am mindful too that it is Black History Month, and an AfD tag with no real prospect of deletion or draftification helps neither readers nor editors.  IgnatiusofLondon ( talk ) 00:43, 21 February 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep