Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belgian Africa

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 merge to Belgian colonial empire. slakr^\ talk / 21:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Belgian Africa

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

I think this should be deleted and redirected to Belgian colonial empire. Vanjagenije (talk) 02:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ceradon (talk • contribs) 03:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, as creator. Like francafrique, the term "Belgian Africa" is sometimes used to describe the countries in central Africa which Belgium has particularly close diplomatic ties with. That these are (pretty much) her former colonies is neither here nor there. See here or, indeed, here where the term is used in an overtly modern (I.e. non-colonial) sense. Perhaps a disambiguation page is not needed, but a redirect to the empire page would strike me as quite prejudiced. Equally, much of the Belgian colonial empire page deals (in too much detail in my opinion) with Belgian colonies outside Africa and can potentially distort the focus but that's a bit peripheral. Basically, in my opinion, this is exactly the sort of page (almost a definition item) which is best served by a redirect. Perhaps the nom would like to clarify his/her argument somewhat? —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Contrary to his belief this will not result in the article disappearing. Instead, the search term will lead to the otehr article, which also covers three minor possessions (and brief) elsewhere. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you've misunderstood my objection. It's not that the page will "disappear", but that it will link to something which only reflects part of its actual meaning. Personally, I'd rather a full deletion rather than a redirect for this reason. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. I agree with editor Peterkingiron that the Belgian colonial empire article doesn't serve as a good redirect target, and that it overly emphasizes tiny non-African items. Note the Belgian colonial empire#Major possessions section is about the Belgian Africa area. How about edit the intro of that section to mention that the area is now sometimes known as Belgian Africa, and include mention of the current countries (as now in the Belgian Africa article, perhaps add a bit more about post-colony history in the section, and rename the section, and then use that as a target? --do ncr am 23:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Agree with above: we can cite the two references given here by Brigade Piron when adding the extra text as Doncram says. The target article isn't that unbalanced when you consider that the African section links to three main articles. In any case this can't stay as a disambiguation page, as it is not intended to distinguish between different uses of the page title; it has to be either a redirect or an independent, referenced article: Noyster (talk), 17:45, 9 January 2015 (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.