Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/African people


 * 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. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 19:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

African people

 * - (|View AfD) (View log)

Reason...this page was created a couple of years ago. Immediately somebody queried the relevancy of it, pointing out the POV nature, and factual inaccuracies. "Citation needed"/"unsourced" tags were placed. Now some time later the article remains unsourced, and is still full of POV points. There was also a tag that stated something to the effect that it reads like a school essay, which was removed without any real rhyme or reason. The best reason however would be for editors to read the article in question, making note of how long the "unsourced" tag has sat there. Dr Rgne (talk) 14:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, deletion is not a substitute for improvement in cases like this. Stifle (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment We're asked to "make note of how long the 'unsourced' tag has sat there". It appears that sources have been added since December 2006, but that nobody has removed the "unsourced" tag since December 2006.  I agree with nominator that much of this seems to be a rambling, disorganized essay that addresses a lot of different topics incoherently; I agree with Stifle that this is a topic that can be improved.  I'll have to say that the title "African people" took me by surprise, but we also have articles entitled European people and Asian people, White people, Black people, even Green people.  To me, all three titles seem too simplistic, but in some cases, a generic term is a better place for most redirects.  (Green people actually is a redirect). Mandsford (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've done some editing to the lead and the prehistoric population bits; I think that's the largest problem at the moment (covering stuff like haplogroups, race generally, etc). I don't have the context or materials to make that section awesome-great, but it's a start. 127.0.0.1:80 (talk) 20:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, the article is at the very least a decent foundation, and the topic is clearly notable, with several sources already dealing chiefly with the African people. Everything else is salvageable by editing. Huon (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Important worldwide topic, though all information does need sourcing. But this does not appear to be a POV fork, rather a simple way to describe a broad group. Sebwite (talk) 01:45, 23 September 2008 (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.