Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Djiboutians in the United Kingdom

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Djiboutians in the United Kingdom

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

This article covers a very small group of people (445 in England and Wales), who are not the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. I have not been able to find scholarly articles or government reports about Djiboutians in the UK, and they're not covered by the International Organization for Migration's mapping reports that exist for many immigrant groups. As a result, there is very little to base the article on apart from a single statistic from the census, and WP:GNG is not met. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete unless these 445 have done something significant as reported in reliable sources then it fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Djibouti is a transit point for many other Horn Africans, as well as many british citizens who come from the Horn. Djibouti is among the most closely allied country to the UK on the eastern shore of Africa. Several British citizens who do not have Djoubitian nationality immigrated from within the country after residing there for lengthy periods or even being born there. The increased bilateral relations between the two countries means this nomination is premature and we ought to see what the relation holds in store for the future. Djibouti is deals that extensively with the UK in military, political, economincal and social contexts. All these points more than negate questionable demographics and merely cement the encyclopedic nature of this article.Ninefive6 (talk) 08:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

please supply reliable sources to back your claims. LibStar (talk) 08:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think there may be some misunderstanding about what this article is about, Ninefive6. It's about a very small immigrant community, not bilateral relations between two countries. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I already know that. But the point of a comprehensive encyclopedia should be to give even content on minor communities. It seems to me rather redundant to focus only on the larger communtiies everyone already knows about. Ninefive6 (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there were sources to base an article on, I would agree, Ninefive6. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete instead for now until there's a better solid article independently. SwisterTwister talk 00:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2016 (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.