Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/African Australian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Consensus isn't so clear on Afro-Australian, and a second nomination of that article separately may be in order. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Extended rationale: The keep side of the discussion show that the term is in use, by the Autralian government and otherwise. The arguments brought forward to delete often include the current article being in bad shape, which is fixable without deletion. The number of votes for keeping reflect this. I don't believe the second article in this same AfD has been fully discussed to consensus yet, and a new nomination on different grounds would be preferable, as the grounds for keeping/deleting the article differ from the arguments brought forward in the discussion on African Australian. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] African Australian

African Australian (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)
Afro-Australian (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) -- WP:POVFORK created with cut and paste copying from African Australian Gnangarra 07:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is a WP:SYNTH there is no term in use of African Australian, even the article states this;
There is no clear definition of what constitutes being an "African Australian" (or "Afro-Australian"). Along with indigenous Africans who were born in Africa, the term could encompass people as disparate as Caribbean British, African Americans or Cape Malays who with an African upbringing or family background have chosen Australia as their new home. The Australian Bureau of Statistics records people according to their birthplace and their self-described ancestry, although aggregated data for Africa is split between "Sub-Saharan" and "North Africa and the Middle East". Gnangarra 14:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep That does not say there is no such term, it says the term is ill defined. In fact the term is widely used [1][2][3][4] [5][6] --neonwhite user page talk 15:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't see deleting an entire article about Australians who can trace their ancestry to Africa, simply because the nominator disagrees with the word used. Mandsford (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I dont have a problem with the use of any term, provided the term is clearly defined by a WP:RS and the definition is the basis of the article. This has no such definition(even states that) and as such the inclusion of all groups is a WP:SYNTH. Defining terms with out WP:RS is also called primary research see WP:NOT#OR which says Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms... my emphasis added all of which adds up to the basis for the nomination. Gnangarra 13:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep While the article is a hodge-podge of terms, this is a content issue and not a deletion issue. The term is used reasonably widely to mean two different things. People from (or with recent ancestry from) the continent of Africa regardless of "race" (for lack of a better word). This would include North Africans of Arab or Berber descent, South Africans of European, Indian or Malay descent as well as black Africans who have migrated to Australia. The other use of the term is a cognate of the term African American in other words "citizens or residents of Australia who have origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa" whether or not they came here from Africa or not. This article at present conflates both terms and as such needs rewriting (and possibly the infobox removed as misleading) but the article surely has a place. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This discusses a subject that is worth discussing, even though its (final) content and name are matters that need to be debated. Obviously there are many nuances that may need to be covered, including the mixed african and european ancestory of many "white" South Africans.--Grahame (talk) 05:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - the article is more than just a hodge-podge, I don't think it can be rescued. We need to be more specific. Just because somebody is "black" and lives in Australia does not make them African Australian. Currently the article includes people born in the US, eg Marcia Hines, and Jamaica, for example Billy Blue. I have not heard the term used - rather we are more specific - for example Sudanese-Australian, Egyptian-Australian, South African-Australian, ... . At present it is misleading and wrong and I don't see any justification as to why it needs a place -= Africa is a big continent with many diverse people and I think they are more specific in their identification than to the continent at large when it comes to linking to their Australian identity.--Matilda talk 06:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Further Comment - the Australian Bureau of Statistics does not have a clear definition and the article itself states The Australian Bureau of Statistics records people according to their birthplace and their self-described ancestry, although aggregated data for Africa is split between "Sub-Saharan" and "North Africa and the Middle East". The Middle East is included! This is substantiated by ANCP Ancestry - 1st Release : A description of the coding using the Australian Standard Classification of Cultural and Ethnic Groups (ASCCEG) released October 2000. For reference on the talk page of this article I put down all the categories the ABS do do (275) When it comes to the aggregation per ABS 2901.0 you should note that for example 49 Other North African and Middle Eastern includes 4904 Iranian; 4905 Kurdish; 4906 Sudanese; 4907 Turkish - there is no way we would include Turkish Australians within the ambit of the ordinary person's understanding of African Australians even if we felt like being pragmatic. Similarly I find it rather weird that someone born in Jamaica, even if of African slave ancestry, is described as an African Australian from a time before Australia was a concept (ie Billy Blue - arrived Aus in 1801). We do not have an article on European Australian although we do have articles on American Australian or Asian Australian - also concepts relating to other continents. The American Australian article is a bit weird as it is also not clear in its definition referring rapidly to North America - somehow Australians from South America don't count for the purposes of Wikipedia!?! The article on Asian Australians I suspect is also somewhat flawed as not being tightly defined. I think it would be better altogether if we had an article on the Australian Standard Classification of Cultural and Ethnic Groups (ASCCEG) classifications linking to articles at any level of 2, 3 or 4 digit break down but not trying to aggregate beyond two digit classification. --Matilda talk 08:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Er, Australia was not a "concept" in 1801?? Not a political one, you mean. Johnbod (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Why should we have a term that links Marcia Hines and George Gregan together with John Maxwell Coetzee? Do they link with a term - ie self-describe as African Australian - I don't believe so. Do we need to link them with a term? I can't see why.
The six links provided above do not in my mind provide any definition or authority for the use of the term. If you look at the content:
  • The first is AfricanOz, your African Australian online resource, with links and info on events, news, music, travel & more. This site is for everyone: whether you're of African heritage, have an interest in Africa, or you're simply browsing the web. So what ... Note also not a government website
  • The second is the African Australian Association ACT - not a government website. The associations aims include To promote a greater understanding of Africa, its cultures and heritage, in the community and membership is open to any individual (excluding non-Australians with diplomatic status) who supports the aims and objectives of the Association - they ask which country you are form but nothing more to help with he definition that I can see
  • Not sure what point the third link is making, it isn't a government link and discusses somebody who is described specifically as a member of the Sudan-born community in Australia - at the bottom are various links to various organisations but so what ...
  • The fourth link is a department of Immigration link advising of an organisation called African Australian Welfare Council of Victoria Inc but it makes no comment about the organisation and this link does not help with definition
  • The 5th link is a parliamentarian (NSW) describing her attendance at the eighth Annual African Australian Young Achievers Award ceremony - no definitional help and to my mind still so what when it comes to this article - it specifically refers several times to refugees from Sierra Leone
  • the 6th link refers us on to an African Australian Music Website and that website in turn Welcome[s us] to the World's Music in Australia - so what
With respect all User:Neon white appears to have done is googled the term and given us some links - none of these inform us or would help to develop the article and they are of dubious use when giving authority to the term. Since ABS doesn't count them (except when included with the middle-east) how are we going to define the term. I appreciate clean-up is not an argument for deletion, but it seems to me that this article comprises original research and not very good research at that. I support Gnangarra's view that the article is a WP:SYNTH - that there is no term in use of African Australian--Matilda talk 09:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec)I think we will have to agree to disagree here. I don't think the uses cited above can be dismissed so easily, nor do I think dismissing them establishes that the term is not used. Further, I don't see any reason that an article can't be written that covers the people listed above; i.e. people descended from indigenous sub-saharan africans regardless of the name of the article. It is at least as legitimate as Asian Australian or Anglo-Celtic Australian, other grab-bag groups. That they exist as a group was made obvious by the trials that Andrew Symonds went through in India this year where he was mocked as a monkey - a common racist epithet for people of African descent - regardless of the fact that he wasn't born in Africa, lived in Africa or had parents who lived in Africa. I don't see the point of denying that this group exists. Lastly, if there is any OR; remove it and stub the article. It still is not a reason to delete. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Andrew Symonds interestingly he doesnt call himself African, or even West Indian It is not an aspect of his heritage he has ever chosen to explore, for Symonds is fiercely proud of his Australian upbringing and identity[7] based on this he shouldn't be in the list. Gnangarra 11:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Why is self-identification the be-all and end-all and why does it trump documented fact? -- Mattinbgn\talk 21:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Not sure what "the fact" is. Andrew Symonds was born in England. He has "West Indian blood in him"[8]. He was brought up in Australia from the age of 3 but not by his biological father.(same ref) I can't see the claim to documented fact that he is an African Australian. The fact that he was mocked by an ignorant and unruly crowd based on a common racist epithet does not make him African Australian. --Matilda talk 21:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
There is no dispute by him, or anyone else, that his biological father is of Afro-Caribbean descent. That fact doesn't disappear somehow because he doesn't describe himself as such or identify as such and I remain puzzled as to why some here think it does. The term is used (and documented as used) to describe people such as Symonds by a range of people and as such is a valid topic for an article. Whether the government uses the term or not is a furphy, article titles on wikipedia don't require government sanction—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattinbgn (talk • contribs)
  • to derive African Australian from somebody whose biological father is of Afro-Caribbean descent and who grew up in Australia is original research unless substantiated by a reliable source - a google search of Symonds "african australian" doesn't come up with anything at the top that would meet WP:RS (top of the search results though is our own wikipedia article :-( ). Similarly neither Marcia Hines or Deni Hines came up with anything through Google. So I challenge anybody to come up with reliable sources, if no reliable sources then the article fails WP:V , WP:NOR and that is why Gnangarra has called for its deletion under WP:SYNTH. The article might not require government sanction, it does require wikipedia standards of verifiability to be met with no original research and the citing of reliable sources.--Matilda talk 22:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete There's a worthy discussion there *somewhere*, but it would require a sociology major to figure it out and I don't think ground breaking research on questionably grouped subjects is the role of Wikipedia. This article can't decide whether it's about African-American-Australians (who may have been born here), half-Jamaican Australians, South African (white) Australians or newer African migrants from Central and Eastern Africa. Sub topics such as Sudanese Australians, Kenyan Australians for example may be more suitable here. The three government links (4-6) that Neonwhite linked actually reference the proper names of organisations which have registered those names, it's not a "use" by the Government of the term. Orderinchaos 10:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Barbara Perry, Australian politician and minister, clearly states that the Annual African Australian Young Achievers Award is supported by the multicultural unit in the State office of the Department of Education and describes it as a means of recognising the achievements of young African Australians in various fields. in fact she uses the term 5 seperate times in her article. If the term is published on government websites then they are using the term. --neonwhite user page talk 19:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Which Government agency uses the term, as opposed to referring to non-government organisations which use the term? Barbara Perry went to a ceremony in her electorate run by a non Government organisation which has in its title "African Australian". Based on her speech the organisation is focussing on refugees for Sierra Leone. I do not think that if Deni Hines got up and sang she would be part of the target group for this organisation, nor would the equivalent of a young Coetzee. I don't believe Perry's use of the term in this context helps to substantiate the claim - her speech is triggered by the function she just attended and appears to me to be no more than that.--Matilda talk 19:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The term is being used by a notable politician in a speach published on a government website, it is a verifiable source that completely substantiates that the term is in use together with the fact that there are at least three individual organisations that use the term and claim to represent the 'African Australian' communities. This clearly makes the subject notable. --neonwhite user page talk 21:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • A minor politician received a free cup of tea and tries to prove her relevance to her constituents by getting up in parliament and talking about the event - does not make a subject notable.--Matilda talk 22:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
A speech that is published by a verifiable source is valid for this use and proves the term exists and is in use by the communities themselves, politicians and journals, your personal opinion of the politician has no relevance at all. Further sources include the Journal of Pan African Studies[9] and the Journal of Culture and African Women Studies[10] --neonwhite user page talk 22:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • While my personal opinion of the politician's notability may not have a bearing, my opinion of the notability of her speech does. I maintain that it is an incidental mention and gives not credibility to the notability of the topic. The matter did not concern her portfolios as minister and was in fact given before she was a minister. Hansard you will find is littered with such speeches about doings in the members electorate. There is a category for such speeches and this so categorised: Private Members Statements. Notability is not established by this isolated speech which in fact is referring to a non government organisation.
Notability is a policy that applies to wikipedia article, it does not in any way apply to the sources used in them. The term is used widely in a speach by a notable politician making the term clearly in use. --neonwhite user page talk 17:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The article in the Journal of Pan African Studies discusses the problems of african identity: It is often acknowledged that African identities are “complex, contested and contingent,” and that these negotiations and contestations are conducted in many locations around the globe. Basically she interviewed 8 women and wrote it up. The common thing was Africa, but actually it isn't it is about race - she wouldn't have been researching the mother of a child of European appearance no matter how many generations of background she had in Africa. The researcher does not stick with the generalities though (I suggest you read the article not just google it) but rapidly provides details of the countries of the fathers of these children (for others following the debate the article is entitled Mothering Children of African Descent: Hopes, Fears and Strategies of White Birth Mothers.) She uses the term twice in the article - but I don't see her term as giving significance or definition to the concept other than the obvious people of African ancestry who are Australians - she does not use it as a defining term but rather a collective description which she abandons with more specific terminology later. The second article is by the same author and draws on the same research. In it I think she actually uses the term "non-African Australian" more often that "African Australian". Once again (she does use the word "white" as in "white husband" , "white Australian girlfriend " "white Australian woman", "white western woman", "black African and the white Anglo Saxon lady’s marriage" (in an interview quote) followed by "African/white marriages" in her text. She is discussing racial issues - perfectly legitimately in the context of the research - a minefield for an ill-defined topic on wikipedia. --Matilda talk 22:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
This has nothing whatsoever to do with the use of the 'term'. Again your personal opinions of the subject matter is irrelevant to this discussion. The point is that the term is clearly used in relevant journals. --neonwhite user page talk 17:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Neonwhite, it doesn't prove anything of the sort - it simply proves there's an organisation which has been allowed by the Business Names or Fair Trading place to register in that state. See my example further down (the Dole Bludgers one). Orderinchaos 23:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes it does, read the sources, it is conclusive, undeniable proof that the term in well used by journals, politicians and other organisations. --neonwhite user page talk 17:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Response to Neonwhite - all sources cited use the term tangentially - none of them define it - one author even if in two journals, who does not define the term and rapidly moves on from teh terms does not equal undeniable proof that the term in well used by journals, a politician saying she attended a function organised by a charity does not equal the politician using the term, other organisations maybe but as per my reference to the African Australian Association ACT above; the associations aims fail to help to define the term as they include To promote a greater understanding of Africa, its cultures and heritage, in the community and membership is open to any individual (excluding non-Australians with diplomatic status) who supports the aims and objectives of the Association - they ask which country you are from but nothing more to help with he definition that I can see. I don't believe any of the other organisations define the term either. If there is no definition from a reliable source there should be no article--Matilda talk 20:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, a valid Australian ethnic subgroup (or rather, group of subgroups), not dissimilar to Irish Australian or Anglo-Australian. The current poor state of the article, in particular the "list of African Australians", is in itself not a valid rationale for deletion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC).
The rationale for nomination was because the article is a WP:SYNTH not because of the list of whos included... which in itself should be subject WP:RS as required by WP:BLP any person listed without a suitable citation should be removed from the article. The combination of Sub-Saharan groups, Middle Eastern, European is the synthesis. Gnangarra 11:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the list will need to be cleaned out if the article is kept. However, I believe that "African Australian" is no more a synthesis than Anglo-Celtic Australian, and the fact that there are organisations describing themselves as "African Australian" per User:Neon_white's keep rationale above. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC).
maybe WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but interestingly the Anglo-Celtic Australian includes people from South Africa, the same peoples included into this article. Overall it does have some concerns but is defined by this sourced statement, Historian John Hirst wrote in 1994: "Mainstream Australian society was reduced to an ethnic group and given an ethnic name: Anglo-Celt." [7], it more appropriate to tag for cleanup/sourcing etc... Gnangarra 13:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • No prejudice against recreation I don't feel like getting into this argument, but there's always the option of deleting and then creating a new article if reliable sources come along. Andjam (talk) 12:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as above, legitimate term which is even used by Australian government agencies. (jarbarf) (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - which Government agency uses the term, as opposed to referring to non-government organisations which use the term?--Matilda talk 19:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
It doesnt matter whether they are government, non-government or just supported by the government, the fact that the term is in use to refer to australians of african decent is what is important. --neonwhite user page talk 17:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment To create a more obvious example. Let's say I run the Dole Bludgers On Ya Bike Foundation, which is a fictional charity which helps disadvantaged young people get jobs in somewhat unorthodox ways. If the politician were to visit me or I was to get government funding, they would reference the name of my organisation in parliament and on their websites. That does not for a minute suggest they think unemployed people are dole bludgers, they are just referring to the name of my organisation. Orderinchaos 23:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • NOTE Afro-Australian included at this point as its a cut/paste WP:POVFORK of the nominated article, cut/paste creation is also a GNU license violation. Gnangarra 07:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep but consider a rename/merge to the clearer 'Australians of African descent', and making the others into redirects. (We have done this with quite a few categories.) Occuli (talk) 13:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep "African-A..." per keepers above. Open to Rename - I prefer 'Australians of African descent' for the category, and maybe the article too. Delete the POV fork per Gnangarra if the older is kept, otherwise merge to sort the history issue. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    • How does renaming address the issue thats its undefined original research Gnangarra 17:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
That is a content issue - you have failed to make the case that the subject is inherently NN. Johnbod (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I havent made any case based on notability what I have said is that the article is original research used to create a WP:SYNTH...from WP:SYNTH that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia by a contributor. From a notability question Wikipedia:N#Notability_requires_objective_evidence "If no reliable, third-party (in relation to the subject) sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." as yet no editor has provided a reliable source that has a definition of the term. Also in general terms WP:N says ..significant coverage in reliable sources... and it defines significant coverage with ...no original research is needed to extract the content.... So far this topic because of its lack of a definition has enable the creation of POVFORKS, at Afro-Australian and at Black Australian where it specifically excluded the common use of the term. Gnangarra 00:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Repeating an argument doesn't increase its validity. Occuli (talk) 03:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah but its not a repeat of the same, its an answer in relation to the question on notability which it clearly doesnt comply with either. Rather than just vote "keep" provide sources that are reliable and verify the article Gnangarra 04:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The Australian Bureau of Statistics, who are clearly an RS, have done tons of research, which is cited in the article. Arguments about the precise title, which are common, do not affect the validity of the article itself. Johnbod (talk) 04:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Since you requested lets look at the ABS sources and what they are actually contributing to the subject
  1. this(ref #1) refers to two distinct statistical groups Sub-Saharan and North Africa & Middle East, no grouping of "African Australians".
  2. this(ref #4) is raw data to which a person can perform set types of queries, where its used in the article for population density, the combination and presentation of the resultant figures is result of original research by the editor, not the conclusion of any ABS employees research.
These were the only ABS sources in the article, where are the tons of ABS research your referring to. Gnangarra 08:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The Australian Bureau of Statistics codes Ancestry according to Australian Standard Classification of Cultural and Ethnic Groups (ASCCEG) classifications and their approach does not suit the article topic. If you accept their tons of research, you would have topics related to levels of coding in ASCCEG - not a combination of coding levels (ie to aggregate African-Australian you will need to go to the fourth digit level coding and create your own data by aggregating at the country level. Sounds like original research to me in the absence of any justification by a definition provided by a reliable source that any Australians identify by the continent they came from and not, for example, by race. I suspect west Africans would see limited connection with Coetzee or an Egyptian or someone originating from Morocco - my conclusions only but none that as far as I can see can be disputed by a reliable source with a firm definition that includes or excludes them. I note that African American defines its group as citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa. The article later mentions sub-Sahara. That is more akin incidentally to an ABS categorisation under ASCCEG at the 2 digit level but one which to date no one has come up with a reliable source to discuss as a definition covering "African-Australian". --Matilda talk 20:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I m with Occuli and Johnbod that the two pages Afro-Australian and African Australian should be one merged page entitled Australians of African descent (and that all similar pages refering to any (ethnic/national group of diaspora in any country) should be similarly named Mayumashu (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Actual ethnic subgroup of this nation. Badagnani (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Response - could you cite a source for that please as that is the issue? --Matilda talk 20:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep the ethnic group exists, and therefore is inherently notable. The two articles should be merged. Yahel Guhan 21:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per comments above. Noor Aalam (talk) 22:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep of "African Australians", and Strong Delete of "Afro Australians Of African Descent" and "Afro Australians". I have not heard seen the word "Afro Australian" being used in anything official.
It is counterproductive to add two levels of qualification (continent of birth and race) for a definition. Why should an British born Australian whose parents were Jamaican and ancestors came from West Africa be seen to have stronger claims to being "African" than a Malay South African or Arab Egyptian immigrant? Are we now going to have articles like Vietnamese French of Chinese Descent? (don't laugh - it is not in insubstantial number) or White Australian botanists? Do we count persons of 50% African blood? as being "Afro Australians Of African Descent" (oh for pity's sake...).
I do not think we should start writing articles of ancestry trying to guess who is of "Afrian descent" based on crude racial grounds. It would be simpler, inclusive and just as accurate to base membership by having an ancestral or birth link to the continent. Besides the Australian Bureau of Statistics has no statistics on the number of "blacks", and there is no such thing as a stock-standard definition of what an African Australian is.
Kransky (talk) 11:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Article needs rewriting and sourcing, not deletion. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2008 (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.