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. No consensus to delete, merge can be discussed outside of AfD. (non-admin closure) buidhe 22:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1776 Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not certain that this is a notable endeavor independent from The 1619 Project, which it criticizes. Such sources as can be found only discuss this as a reaction to the 1619 Project, and I'm not seeing coverage of this project's writings on their own merits. Moreover, many sources about this topic are of the op-ed type. Those cited in the article are mostly from the Washington Examiner, which participates in this project and is therefore not an independent source, or from more questionable Internet outlets. This topic would better be covered more concisely at The 1619 Project#Critical response. Sandstein 17:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 17:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and merge with The 1619 Project per nom. --Cornellier (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Inclined to keep -- The project appears to have produced a collection of essays. Both 1619 and 1776 appear to be efforts to reassess the impact of slavery on modern America. In the light of recent demonstrations in reaction to the death of George Floyd this appears to be a hot topic. I am thus inclined to keep this for the moment. There may be a case for reviewing this in (say) a year. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- While clearly in reaction to the 1619 project, it seems substantial enough to have its own page. With a quick google search I see discussions of it in the Wall Street Journal [1], NY Daily News [2] and Medium [3] -Pengortm (talk) 05:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- for the moment. It deserves its own page.--Barbanegre (talk) 12:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- As per the points above and lack of clear reason for deletion. James xeno (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- A brief in the 1619 Critical Response would be too reductive for this complex topic. The project is also young - more and better references are likely to appear as discussion continues. SageMacG (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with The 1619 Project. Was about to close as keep (hello new editors) but then I looked at the sourcing... It's refbombed with Washington Examiner sources. If this publication is hosting the essays of the 1776 Project, it has to be treated as a primary/affiliated source. All that's left are sources that, by consensus, are partisan and noted as unfit for exceptional claims. Anything noteworthy that needs to be said about this subject (absent the primary/affiliated sources) can be said within the existing article, about which this project is commentary. I'd be open to deletion if there is a convincing argument that there is nothing sourced to merge. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 19:16, 13 June 2020 (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.