Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Africa international relations


 * 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Africa international relations

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Appears to be an essay or (largely) original research. No true references, only a pair of external links and a further-reading list. Possible copy-and-paste. Author has a history of such diatribes (he's already up to the final-warning level). Contested PROD, removed by original author without explanation. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I was going to nominate this myself when I saw the PROD had been removed. The article is an essay; someone's homework. It is devoid of references or wikilinks and full of original research. -- Diannaa (Talk) 05:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep and Rename: Unhelpful, unresearched and POV AfD in blatant violation of WP:BEFORE. It is a valid and notable topic and there are tons of references. Passes WP:RS and WP:N. Right now the article is original research, but that does not mean it cannot be improved. A poorly written article needs improvement, AfD is the wrong venue. If you want to contribute constructively, improve the article, there is no positive merit in rushing for an AfD. Rename the article to International relations among African countries or something. --Reference Desker (talk) 05:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh, just how is this a POV? I have no leanings one way or another on this subject, and you have absolutely no basis whatsoever in assuming that I do. Please refrain from making accusations against other editors which have no basis in fact. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You might want to read WP:BIAS and Americentrism. --Reference Desker (talk) 05:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So, as an American. I am somehow not allowed to bring this up for an AfD? Preposterous! I could care less about the point of view of this article. It is an essay and appears to contain original research. That is the problem - in any country. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak delete: Topic may be notable, but is written like an essay, with no links or inline citations. Most of what is covered in the article is covered in other pages. Unless the article was improved along the lines of a history of international relations in Africa, international relations of the OAU or international relations by country, don't see a reason to keep - it makes no sense to lump an entire continent's foreign relations into one article when the continent does not act as a whole. IgnorantArmies 09:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: ReferenceDesker, it is best if you try to be more civil when discussing anything on Wikipedia. This article has not been dominated for deletion because it deals with Africa, it has been nominated because it is not written in the way that Wikipedia articles should be written. IgnorantArmies 09:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That needs clean up, not deletion. --Reference Desker (talk) 10:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Admittedly the current text isn't ideal, but it would be possible to write a decent encyclopaedic article with this title, and AfD is not for cleanup. In other words, when you find content like this, you're supposed to fix it, not delete it.— S Marshall  T/C 10:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (Subsequently) On looking into this some more, I see that an encyclopaedic article with this title would largely duplicate content we already have (which is at Foreign relations of the African Union). I think the best thing to do would be to redirect to that title for the time being.— S Marshall  T/C 11:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Foreign relation of AU refers to the interaction between the AU (all AU members as a single entity) and the outside world. But this article is about intra-African relations. --Reference Desker (talk) 11:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Then it should be called African internal relations. I must say that your position appears to be "keep but rewrite and rename" which doesn't make much sense to me, because what you're proposing to keep is different content with a different title.— S Marshall  T/C 12:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The current article has little or no content dealing with relationships between African countries, it just deals with relationships between Africa as a whole and the rest of the world; most of what is in the article is covered in foreign relations and history of the African Union and Pan-Africanism. The article currently seems slightly POV toward Africa/ns (not that that can't be fixed). IgnorantArmies 12:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Actually a very good article. But because its scope is so broad, covering any African country over the past 200 years or so, it is really not suited for an encyclopedia which should be for concrete information on specific topics. An essay on general trends, no matter how insightful and how important the topic, belongs someplace else. Jaque Hammer (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We're supposed to have broad-scope articles, so that's not a reason for deletion. I mean, we've got an article that's just called Africa, right?— S Marshall  T/C 23:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - article sounds like a worthwhile encyclopedia article which requires a major clean up if kept. As per WP:RS and WP:NOTES, Expert on this subject matter is necessary. Major restructure e.g. footnotes or fix up required if kept. --Visik (Chinwag Podium) 07:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete At the moment, this is all OR. AfD is not cleanup, but we should also not be hosting an unacceptable page until it is proven that it can be fixed up. A redirect to another logical article could be fitting for now, but we don't want people to write OR essays on topics and have the essays kept just because the topic could potentially be suitable.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There are a given list of external links and references. If one spend some time and dig it up, info contained can be attributed to those references, so its fixable and a clean up by adding foot notes and checking for basic facts isn't so hard rather than slam the rule book for delete. I do admit, material submitted sub par minimum standards stay in wikipedia for a long time before it gets fixed through the backlog. --Visik (Chinwag Podium) 09:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Userfy for clean-up if there is anyone willing to take up that task, otherwise delete. The topic itself, although broad, is certainly notable. The writing and sourcing, on the other hand... When it gets to this point it's sometimes better to start from scratch. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:OR written like an essay, scope is too broad, covering the whole of Africa instead of focusing on individual countries. Dragquennom (talk) 16:26, 4 May 2011 (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.