Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/African immigrants to New Zealand


 * 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   no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

African immigrants to New Zealand

 * – ( View AfD View log )

fails WP:GNG. we don't have articles for every country for "African immigrants to X". I don't see how one for New Zealand is notable. no significant coverage of this topic. LibStar (talk) 07:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Remarkably uninformative article that appears to have been built around one statistic-- 0.2% of the population of New Zealand was listed as being of African origin, apparently in a 2001 census. As with the "x and y relations" pages, we don't have a policy that "persons from X who are living in Y" pages are notable enough to exist as stubs that one person brings into the world and then leaves for someone else to raise.  The reason is that x and y combinations or comparisons are endless.  The best rule of thumb is that if you have nothing to say, don't say it.  Mandsford 15:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Pointless. DerbyCountyinNZ
 * Delete no evidence of why it's notable —Felix the Cassowary 21:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

(Talk Contribs) 20:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete on grounds that this article is a dictionary definition combined with trivia. Carrite (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

--Avenue (talk) 08:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yes, it's a stub, with little content. It's also a topic that hasn't been heavily researched. But there is enough reliable information out there to support at least a short article. Here are a few potential sources:
 * Udahemuka and Pernice (2010). Does Motivation to Migrate Matter? Voluntary and Forced African Migrants and Their Acculturation Preferences in New Zealand, Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology.
 * African Youth Health and Well-Being: Participatory Action Research Project. Evolve and Victoria University, 2005.
 * Guerin, P., & Guerin, B. (2002). Relocating refugees in developed countries: The poverty experiences of Somali resettling in New Zealand.  In K. Lyon & C. VoightGraf (Eds.), 5th International APMRN Conference, Fiji 2002: Selected papers (pp. 64-70). Wollongong: University of Wollongong.
 * Chile, L. M. (2002). The imported underclass: poverty and social exclusion of black African refugees in Aotearoa New Zealand. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 43:3, pp. 355-366.
 * Humpage, L. (1999). Refuge or Turmoil? Somali Refugee Adolescents in Christchurch Secondary Schools. Christchurch: Refugee Resettlement Support.
 * if you can write these into an article perhaps but why isn't this topic really covered in NZ press? LibStar (talk) 09:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm reading too much into your "you", but I don't believe I'm required to drop everything else and produce a good article on the topic for this page to be kept. The onus is more on you to show it can't be made into a decent article. I don't see any real reason why this couldn't develop into something similar to our African Australian article, for instance.
 * The topic doesn't usually have a high profile in the NZ press (exceptions would include our first hijacker, Peter Mwai's AIDS trial in the 1990s, and perhaps the occasional election year when Winston Peters thinks he can get some mileage out of anti-immigrant rhetoric). But there is ongoing low-level coverage, e.g., , , , , , . --Avenue (talk) 12:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. I've assumed that the article, like its only source, excludes people from South Africa. (It should probably exclude Zimbabweans too.) The article doesn't make this clear. If they're included, we're talking about at least five times as many people, and a much bigger topic. --Avenue (talk) 12:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Avenue has mentioned several potential sources. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep for the reasons outlined by Avenue.  Schwede 66  04:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per the sources pointed out by Avenue. A topic which is the primary subject of multiple academic papers is generally presumed to be notable and suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, unless there's some other policy-based reason not to include it (which no one has brought up in this debate). cab (call) 13:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll withdraw my delete !vote, not voting !keep either, but there's room for someone to make a real article out of this in the future. In answer to cab's observation, there is no policy automatically including or prohibiting the "X living in Y" pages, and notability has to be asserted, hence a stub doesn't get it.  Mandsford 17:16, 10 February 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.