Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indigenous peoples of Oceania


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 12:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Indigenous peoples of Oceania

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No sourced other than a census. The whole thing is WP:OR. Also the usage of the term Indigenous is very debatable in this case as the Maori did not originate from New Zealand. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapita_culture IronyMaam (talk) 12:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh god how do I fix that mess above. IronyMaam (talk) 12:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * IronyMaam, I fixed it. You might want to install WP:TWINKLE, it makes navigating this easier.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 12:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks mate. Will do. IronyMaam (talk) 00:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Deletion is not cleanup, and sources do treat Indigenous peoples of Oceania as a group, for example . (As for indigenous being debatable, it applies to the label in general, i.e. if you go 100,000 back almost every human group moved since).-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 12:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep., the sources are great, does need cleanup however, New3400 (talk) 13:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you mean the sources are great. There are no sources other than census data on population. IronyMaam (talk) 00:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per Eostrix.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Eostrix. I also found . AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:DRAFTIFY The above observations that the current state of the article is not up to snuff are correct, but it's not WP:TNT material either. I believe it has been demonstrated that this does not meet WP:DELREASON (which is what I think the nominator was going for). I am perfectly willing to change this to a "keep" if the article is improved sufficiently during the course of the AfD. TompaDompa (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per the sources identified by Eostrix and AleatoryPonderings. WP:ARTN says that the current state of an article does not affect the notability of the subject. If good sources exist, as they do here, then the topic is notable, and shouldn't be deleted or TNTd. People who are concerned about the state of the article can use the sources provided to improve it. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The possible state of the article in the future should not be a factor. If you think it can be better then fix it IronyMaam (talk) 00:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Article are not deleted because of being in bad shape unless their content is unsalvagable or copyright violations.★Trekker (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2020 (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.