Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 August 10

Guide to deletion

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Jose Martinez-Diaz

Jose Martinez-Diaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't seem to meet notability standards with coverage in secondary sources. The only third-party source here appears to be a local human interest story about his house! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: FYI for passing admins; ineligible for SOFTDELETE, as previously dePRODed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 02:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• Delete The only mention of him in Google Books is a passing thanks to him in an acknowledgements section. As such, I don't believe he passes WP:ACADEMIC or is otherwise notable. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - he seems to have done what any ordinary academic would have done. Ping me if you find anything more substantial. Bearian (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2019 (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.

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

African-American lobby in foreign policy

African-American lobby in foreign policy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I don't think this is a hoax as such, but it definitely seems to fail WP:GNG and heavily violates WP:SYNTH.

3 of the refs are to the website of TransAfrica, founded in 1977, who already have an article, and one is to resolutions by ANLCA, which existed for 5 years in the 1960s. The other two refs are to a single 1996 paper by David A. Dickson.

The external links are both dead. What we have so far are 3 disparate organizations, some of which did not even exist at the same time. The claim that they constitute an "African-American lobby in foreign policy" would seem to be synthesis, unless other authors tie them together, and is not a notable distinct concept unless sources treat it as such. Dickson does seem to do this. Do we have any others?

Looking for new sources for 'African American foreign policy lobby' (no quotes), among our new sources we find this paper from 1980, but given the timeframe it describes and specific subject matter of southern Africa that it focuses on, it seems that it may just be about TransAfrica. Of the other sources, at first a few look promising, but this paper does not refer to the lobby as distinct from TransAfrica, so it is no good, same as this book. This book isn't about a lobby.

All the other sources, while perhaps being on related subjects, don't seem to discuss any distinct lobby of this kind. As GNG says, ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content."

Of interest may be that the article was created by a user who is blocked for sockpuppetry and before that for edit warring, so who knows if this article was in the service of some POV.

Since we seem to only have 1 paper on this direct subject as distinct from TransAfrica, it seems that GNG is not met and the article should be deleted. -Crossroads- (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:SYNTH as detailed by nom. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 02:31, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Drmies (talk) 02:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per rationale given by nom. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination --SalmanZ (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - TransAfrica already has an article, and discussion about TransAfrica makes up 90% of this article. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:22, 15 August 2019 (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.