Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anglophone problem (Cameroon)

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 is "keep". However, article could use improvement (i.e. possible title change according to Legacypac). (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anglophone problem (Cameroon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Original research. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The subject matter meets WP:GNG, so the article should remain. Ralbegen (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I stand to defend that the article subject matter is the same and please if there is any line contracting or abuse wikipedia rules delete it and keep importance facts. The Anglophone problems is a long history for the English speakers in Cameroon, and a very important subject now and forever. ThanksAbanda bride (talk) 22:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - In-depth coverage from a variety of sources, and overall a pretty well-written article. PohranicniStraze (talk) 01:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep its a long well written article. Not seeing the problem here. Not sure the title is neutral, but that can be discussed. Legacypac (talk) 05:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Could maybe do with some cleanup but assertion by nom that this is original research is wrong. More than enough coverage of this matter in reliable sources. AusLondonder (talk) 09:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - IMHO, it's poorly written, but is clearly notable. I'd help edit, but I'm not versed well in the details of this issue. Bearian (talk) 23:18, 9 September 2017 (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.