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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) FOARP (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indian diaspora in Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fork of Non-resident Indian and person of Indian origin#Africa. Don't let those refimprove tags fool you, because behind every subsection in that section is a well-sourced article. Moreover, I don't think there's any content in this article that's worth merging. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - At 111,103 bytes Non-resident Indian and person of Indian origin appears to be already WP:TOOLONG and so it makes sense to have a spinoff page. Whilst this is partly dealt with already by a number of pages dealing with Indians in different areas of Africa (e.g., Indian diaspora in Southeast Africa, Indians in Madagascar etc.), not every area of Africa is covered. My WP:BEFORE found a number of references discussing the Indian diaspora in Africa as a whole (e.g., 1 2 3 4 ) so there is sufficient notability for a stand-alone WP:SPINOFF article on Indians in Africa as whole. User:Rosguill is correct that the article is in a bad state, but it is not so bad that I would support a WP:TNT deletion of it - it's clearly improvable. FOARP (talk) 08:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a search confirms that the title of the article us a valid search term. Notability is established by sources for the term itself and for related subsearches such as ‘Indians in Sudan’ and ‘Indians in Ghana’. The article needs expanding and substantial rewriting but the topic is clearly notable. Mccapra (talk) 10:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment just clarifying my position, I think that the subject is notable, but that the present treatment of the subject in the article up for deletion is inferior to its treatment in the section of Non-resident Indian and person of Indian origin#Africa. Other editors are correct in pointing out that the sections of Non-resident Indian don't include every region of Africa that has Indian people, but neither does Indian diaspora in Africa, unless you count language so vague that it is not clear which parts of Africa it may refer to. I'm not opposed to moving the content from Non-resident Indian...#Africa to Indian diaspora in Africa. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The current state of the article doesn't matter so much in this regard unless you're invoking WP:TNT (which I think doesn't apply as this article isn't beyond saving). There are certainly many page-quality issues that could be dealt with, but these are page quality issues not for AFD. FOARP (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FOARP, I feel like it would have been TNT in practice if only because there exists content elsewhere on Wikipedia that could have replaced the content in the Indian diaspora in Africa article almost entirely. I see that since nomination an editor has significantly expanded the article, so I think this no longer applies, although I think more of the content at Non-resident could be merged to this article. At this point I'm content to close this discussion as keep. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.