Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/African immigrants to the United States


 * 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. per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

African immigrants to the United States
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is outdated. The information is outdated. It's causing problems for people who don't know what it's about. There's no need for it to exist. Klonk (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - If something is out of date, it should be updated not deleted. Do you have any additional reason for deleting the article? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Invalid reason for deletion. Not to say that the article is not outdated: its sections clearly say they are based on 2000 census. I don't know of any more recent one. Timurite (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.  --  I 'mperator 16:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep there is no time limit for notability. Ikip (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - needs updating, not deletion. - Biruitorul Talk 17:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep as the nomination does not give a valid rationale for deletion. If nominator can't specify what information is out of date and how that "causes problems for people who don't know what it's about" I will change my position to speedy keep as a nomination "so erroneous that they indicate that the nominator has not even read the article in question." KuyaBriBri Talk 18:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per above. -- J mundo 18:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Notability is not temporary, though quite why Obama is on the list boggles my mind and I will take that up on the talk page. ukexpat (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep No valid reason for deletion has been given. Edward321 (talk) 04:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. "Outdated" is not a valid reason to delete an article. Also, could nom be more specific and indicate what exactly is outdated? Or even better, he could be bold and go on updating the article with latest data. Netrat (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Of course Wikipedia should have an article about immigrants from Africa to the US. The article has problems (it occasionally confuses "people with a certain skin color living in the US" with "people that were born anywhere on a very large continent, regardless of skin color, and later moved to a specific country"), but that indicates a need for some work from good editors, not wholesale deletion.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  —WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Of course we should have this article. Update and clean it up. Lady  of  Shalott  02:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename African immigration to the United States Wapondaponda (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep a most notable topic, if you need proof, , and were found within less than a minute, many more sources are in existance that are more than sufficient for notabiliy. If a topic is notable than fixing the article is much better than deleting it.  Them  From  Space  19:15, 26 April 2009 (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.