Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eritreans in Germany (2nd nomination)

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eritreans in Germany[edit]

[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)

AfD'd several months ago, rather than reaching consensus for recreating, an editor insists on undoing the consensus of the recent AfD. Same rationale's as original AfD still exist. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The original rationales ("No sources, fails WP:GNG") are not valid criticisms of this article as it currently stands. If it is poorly cited, then improvement of the article should be encouraged, not deletion. This subject falls within Wikipedia's general notability guidelines, as there are many reliable sources (government organizations, intergovernmental organizations, news publications, scholarly articles, etc.) that provide significant coverage that is independent of the subject. As well, there are many similar pages regarding diaspora communities that set a precedent for a group of this size (which is, frankly, quite large) to have a Wikipedia article. Thiqq (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheChronium 05:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:58, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some reliable, in-depth coverage [1] and [2]. Borderline case and article should be improved, but coverage does exist. 15 (talk) 12:30, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes WP:SIGCOV. This was an odd renomination as it’s clear the issue raised in the first AFD, namely an issue of sourcing, was adequately addressed in this recreation with the use of multiple quality sources and inline citations.4meter4 (talk) 12:22, 12 July 2021 (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.