Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anglo-African


 * 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 of the debate was equal consensus; keep.  K ilo-Lima|(talk) 14:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Anglo-African
Where to begin? This article is a highly POV fork of articles such as Whites in Zimbabwe and Culture of South Africa, packed with unreferenced original research. Much of it is a possible copyvio, lifted straight from here - my attempt to clean up earlier today were rv almost immediately without comment. The term Anglo-African itself is a non-notable neologism: no entry in my 1996 Oxford Dictionary of South African English and, while it garners an impressive number of Ghits I cannot find any relevant ones apart from Wiki mirrors and Urbandictionary entries. The article itself states that the phrase "Anglo-African" originated with Luke Jones, who appears to be both Rukaluka (talk • contribs) and 84.69.76.113 (talk • contribs) and is probably also the user Ruks who submitted the phrase to Urbandictionary and the owner of the website here linked to from the article. So that's original research, advertising, vanity and lack of notability/neologism. - Humansdorpie 22:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions.  -- Humansdorpie 22:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Joziboy 12 April 2006, 21:21 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I won't comment on the content/POV issues, as this is not a matter for AfD. Note also that "Anglo-African" does seem to get some Ghits in a historical context. However, the article (as good as it looks at first glance) does appear to be a composite of WP:POVFORKs and original research (WP:OR). It also lacks (WP:RS), plus its forky cobbled-together nature is evidenced by nuggets such as "Ja, I smaak it!". So delete unless sources turn up. Sandstein 04:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV fork / original research. &mdash; mark &#9998; 15:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Retain/Keep - Sorry, I'm not sure what the right protocol is. Maybe it's just "Don't delete"? :) I've just read over the article, and it is terrible - lots of POV, is very badly written in parts. BUT I think it's an interesting topic, and deserves to be tidied up rather than deleted. Unless there's already a better one on English-speaking South Africans?
 * Retain/Keep If we're going to stop racism, we need to identify the roots of everybody. Munckin 06:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I've also found an orphan article called European - Africans (now renamed) - this could be a good place to move salvageable content from Anglo African. Humansdorpie 13:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment That sounds fine. Although it might be nice to retain the separate articles since there is template of the various ethnic groups of South Africa and English-speakers shouldn't be left out. White Africans, while obviously more than only Anglo Africans, is a name I've heard used a lot more than Anglo Africans. Joziboy 13 April 2006, 13:59 (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.