Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foreign-born Afro-Americans


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Foreign-born Afro-Americans

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This page is a mess. Afro-American is synonymous with African American, not a generic term for people of African ancestry in the Western hemisphere. This article has been unsourced/poorly sourced for many years. Finally, the idea that "foreign-born Afro-Americans" have anything in common beside the accident of geography of birth is pure original research without reliable sources that establish the existence of such a group. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete as this is still questionable and I'm not confident there would be better noticeable improvements, delete for now and then restart later if needed. SwisterTwister   talk  04:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  19:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete this appallingly diffuse, badly sourced WP:COATRACK article.  Problems include the fact that the term Afro-American is commonly reserved for the United States, but here it is used for a motley array of groups claiming descent form other countries in the Americas.  Sourcing is a huge problem, take, for example, the section on Amaro, Saro and Emancipado populations, which makes assertions not supported except by links to, for example, Emancipados, itself a highly inadequate article desperately in need of sourcing. (On review, I see  that Nom has already said all what I just said.  He's right, however, to continue with reasons to delete this mess) The primary problem here is with the topic of article.  It is not at all clear what, if anything, the children of American military personnel, the religious seekers of the African Hebrew Israelites of Jerusalem and the Freetown creoles  have in common.  To keep this article we would have to see evidence that someone other than the article's creator discusses these disparate groups as a unit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2016 (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.