Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Djiboutian 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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 10:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Djiboutian Americans

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

This is a tiny immigrant group (numbering fewer than the 300 people required for a precise figure to be reported by the US census), with no significant coverage in reliable sources that I can find. Fails WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Far too small of a group to come up with decent sources. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Djibouti is a transit point for many other Horn Africans, as well as many American citizens who come from the Horn. Djibouti is arguably the most closely allied country to the US on the eastern shore of Africa. Several US citizens who do not have Djoubitian nationality received their green visa lottery card 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 arguably the only country that deals that extensively with the US 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) 08:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If that is the case, then I would argue that the article is premature, not this discussion, Ninefive6. Our notability criteria require significant coverage of the topic in reliable sources. Cn you point us to any? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:43, 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 08:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - contains nothing of significance. Engleham (talk) 04:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as it's still questionable for better improvements. SwisterTwister talk 00:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 21:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no real content in this article. The only source provided is a table from the U.S. Census Bureau indicating that the population of this group, as of 2000, was too small to be specifically reported. Some of the issues referenced by Ninefive6 above would be better discussed in Djibouti–United States relations instead. Furthermore, immigrants to the United States who happened to be born in Djibouti or to have lived there, without holding Djiboutian nationality, would not be classified as Djiboutian Americans, any more than one would consider Olivia de Havilland a Japanese American. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - virtually no sources online. Just to be sure, I did a few other searches on Bing and Google, and found nothing reliable or relevant. Bearian (talk) 17:57, 10 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.