Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Languages of the African Union

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. Star Mississippi 14:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Languages of the African Union

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:OR, mostly WP:UNSOURCED, with @Walt Yoder's support. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Lists. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This isn't about the African Union, it is about the countries which comprise the African Union. It is a CFORK of Languages of Africa. But on that page, this page is described as a subpage which has nothing to do with the African Union, possibly titled as List of official languages of African countries. Beyond that, my thoughts are at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists. Walt Yoder (talk) 23:24, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The introduction is about AU language policy. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only cited sentence is "the AU declared 2006 the Year of African Languages". That's really meagre for a "language policy". Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence outside of the lead is The African Union has not legally defined specific working languages, though they do say that the working languages "shall be, if possible, African languages, Arabic, English, French and Portuguese." That is about it for content in the article about the African Union; it relies on that "African languages" phrase as a hook to continue at length as a WP:CFORK on the concept of African languages. There is already more relevant content at African Union#Languages than there is here. Walt Yoder (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:44, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stubify From what I see, the main problem is the "Languages of AU States" section. In this case the article can be left without one as a stub to be furtherly expanded properly. M85ße (talk) 11:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename the African Union branding is ultimately pointless due to most (if not all) recognised countries in the continent are members. If renaming isn't a possible option, Keep. FusionSub (talk) 11:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So... what do you think should happen to the article instead? I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per walt’s comments. This is already covered elsewhere and seems to be a content fork and WP:COATRACK without much of a rack. Dronebogus (talk) 11:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What a great description, WP:COATRACK! If I had known about this essay, I would have invoked it in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muscovite manorialism AfD. I struggled to explain what it was, but that's what it was; a coatrack to talk about Muscovite military history while ostensibly starting with Kievan Rus' agriculture. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Two parts to this article. One part is language policies of the African Union. This policy part is shorter than the chapter in the parent article that does NOT need a SPINOFF. The other part is a list of languages spoken in member countries. That information is in the articles of the member countries. It is also discussed in overview in languages of Africa. There is absolutely no need to to WP:CFORK that. As for ATD: this article has been around since 2007. A redirect could make sense, just not sure where. gidonb (talk) 03:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coatrack whose combination is not supported by RS (t · c) buidhe 00:05, 7 June 2023 (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.