Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afghan British
- Afghan British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
- Antiguan British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Armenian British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Austrian British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Bahamian British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Barbadian British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Bolivian British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Brazilian British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- British Kurds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- British Malays (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- British Nepali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- British Serbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Burmese British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Chilean Briton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Colombian British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Croatian British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Cuban British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Dominican British (Dominica) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Dominican British (Dominican Republic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Ecuadorian Briton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Egyptian British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Filipino British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Georgian British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Grenadian British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Guyanese British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Indonesian British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Israeli British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Japanese British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Lebanese British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Malaysian Britons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Mauritian British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Mexican Briton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Montserratian British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Moroccan British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- New Zealander British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Nigerian British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Peruvian Briton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Saint Kitts and Nevisian British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Saint Lucian British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Salvadoran British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Sierra Leonean British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Singaporean British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Somali Britons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Tanzanian British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Trinidadian British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Uruguayan British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Venezuelan British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Vincentian British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Yemeni British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Violate Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms and Wikipedia:No original research. Many of the articles also include population estimates that are either unsourced or are referenced with a source that does not support the figure given. User:Stevvvv4444 seems to be creating articles for every conceivable group in the UK regardless of notabilty and has been warned many times but ignores advice. Better covered at articles such as British Asian, Latin American Britons, etc. Sorry for nominating so many articles in one go but this is the only way I could see to sort this mess out. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Strong delete: per rationale in nomination and policied cited therein. --Jza84 | Talk 23:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete We don't need thousands of articles for every combination of people groups. I feel sorry that you had to go through all that nominating. =( Tavix (talk) 23:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sadly these are only what I saw as the clear-cut cases. See User:Cordless Larry/Ethnic groups for some more! Cordless Larry (talk) 00:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I was mystified by the titles of the articles I was not sure that either the English Indonesians that I know about would identify themselves with that name - and I was wondering why and how the actual term fits with anything else, I could be very wrong - but if it is not self identification then what the xxxx is it all about? SatuSuro 00:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- The titles are neologisms, which is part of the reason I have nominated them. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete in that case, wikipedia is not a sandbox for funny ideas that do not relate to the real world (whatever that is) SatuSuro 00:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete all junk. And I have a sneaking suspicion the editor is aware that this is inappropriate. A preventative block might get the message through. JuJube (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- I will warn User:Stevvvv4444 that creating any more of these articles without establishing their notability will result in their being nominated for a block. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- What a mess of articles! Most should be aggregated to a higher level - Baltic British, Latin American British,Caribbean British - as some of these articles already exist, effectively probably a merge. The only one that might survive is Brazilian British - appears to be reasonably well-referenced and refers to a sizeable population of 200,000, and appears not to fall foul of WP:OR, as much of it's material is taken from a BBC article. Paulbrock (talk) 00:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed, although something like Baltic British would be a neologism too, I think. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Nigerian British coul probably be salvaged. Zagalejo^^^ 02:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but would need a reference or two first! Paulbrock (talk) 18:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well, here's one to start you off. Zagalejo^^^ 18:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but would need a reference or two first! Paulbrock (talk) 18:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Clear keep due to extensive notability. Also, no neoglogisms and NOR are not good reasons for deletion. Testmasterflex (talk) 03:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Do you think they are all notable? I can't see how articles such as Georgian British can be, when it states that there are only 551 Georgian-born people in the UK. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oops, my mistake. I see your point. I reviewed all the articles listed here and determined that this garbage should be deleted. My new opinion is Delete all this crap.
- Do you think they are all notable? I can't see how articles such as Georgian British can be, when it states that there are only 551 Georgian-born people in the UK. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Suggest keep but rename to Bolivians in the United Kingdom, New Zealanders in the United Kingdom, etc. This would remove the neologism problem. The other issues - original research, inadequate sources etc - are not reasons for deletion, they're reasons to fix the articles. In a country the size of Britain I think most migrant groups are notable, and demonstrably so. Aggregation might be appropriate in some cases, but it won't be in others - not every nationality can be lumped into a convenient geographical grouping. --Helenalex (talk) 05:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- But they would still be based on very little if any source material. Most of these are pure original research. It's also worth pointing out that no other nationality has these en masse double-barrelled articles about every group. If we remove the unsourced material, we're left, in most cases, with a single sentence. --Jza84 | Talk 11:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - I haven't looked at every article, but those I have checked seem useful information about distinct groups (and there is worthwhile difference between people from St Kitts & Nevis and people from Antigua, etc). Need for some copyediting, sure (too much "who's" for "whose", etc), and maybe checking sources (found a ref in Israeli_British which didn't seem to support statement), but these articles should not be deleted. PamD (talk) 07:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 12:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep: Most of the groups mentioned have populations fast approachiing the 20-30,000 mark with the likelihood of more immigration of the aforementioned countries. In London alone, there are many boroughs with over 100 different languages spoken and these groups are all contributing in an important way, towards British society, so it is only right that their voice gets heard and they get the recognition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.63.209 (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with recognising groups or denying that they make a contribution - it's to do with whether they are all notable enough to have their own articles. Surely it would be better to have a number of well-written, comprehensive articles such as Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom, British African-Caribbean community, Latin American Britons, etc. rather than many poorly sourced articles on individual groups? Furthermore, that these groups might grow over time is not relevant, per WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, I really can't believe so many of my articles I have created have been nominated for deletion, I agree that many of them are not fully sourced, but many are. before I go any further, I believe that you nominating Brazilian British, Filipino British, Nigerian British, Pacific Islanders in the United Kingdom amongst a few others is a complete joke, these ethnic groups number in their hundreds of thousands, and contribute a huge deal to British society. It think the fact that you want to create one page to represent many ethnic groups is a completely unnecessary idea, Latin Americans and Caribbeans vary with religion, ethnicity and many other factors and placing them under one title is extremely controversial, I totally agree with you that many articles will need expanding, but I can help and work on that and ensure that all my future edits will be sourced. These really could become great articles and if one naming convention was agreed on, this could make the articles even better. It is extremely important to distinguish each individual ethnic group in a diverse nation like the UK. There are countless numbers of articles about ethnic groups in other countries that are even less significant than these and contain even less information (Paraguayan American being a good example). I really believe it would be a good idea to give these articles another chance, and I will ensure that the integrity of Wikipedia is kept, and that all articles contain enough information to make them worth while, at present there is no harm in keeping them, some need to be a lot better cited, and others don't. The only one I really agree with you nominating is Georgian British. Thanks Stevvvv4444 (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- I understand that there is variation within broad groups, but such variation can be noted in more general articles. For instance, British people vary in terms of race, ethnicity, religion, etc. but there is still an article called British people which explains these variations. I disagree that there is not harm in keeping the articles as they stand. Not only do most of them lack adequate references, many contain misleading "estimates" of population sizes which are attributed to sources that in no way support the claims being made. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- That's why I said that I would ensure that all figures where put right, and there is plenty of sourced information, and honestly for example, what is wrong with the article Moroccan British, every single thing in the article is sourced, and it gives plenty of information on the ethnic groups history and population distribution. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- To take that example, the 74,000 population estimate comes from a forum post, which fails Wikipedia:Verifiability. There are also lots of unreferenced assertions such as "Moroccan migration to the UK began substantially in the 1960s with many arrivals being a mixture of the professional and unskilled, all coming in search of employment and a new life". Can I also ask that you sign in when you post comments? At the moment, while you're using your signature you are appearing in the page history as User:90.207.84.89. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- And please don't remove AfD templates. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, like I said these articles can either have the information deleted or better sourced, they really do deserve a chance, and I know that you know that many of the articles are extremely important, and that you would just prefer to see them go than stay short and unsourced. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- And please don't remove AfD templates. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- To take that example, the 74,000 population estimate comes from a forum post, which fails Wikipedia:Verifiability. There are also lots of unreferenced assertions such as "Moroccan migration to the UK began substantially in the 1960s with many arrivals being a mixture of the professional and unskilled, all coming in search of employment and a new life". Can I also ask that you sign in when you post comments? At the moment, while you're using your signature you are appearing in the page history as User:90.207.84.89. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- That's why I said that I would ensure that all figures where put right, and there is plenty of sourced information, and honestly for example, what is wrong with the article Moroccan British, every single thing in the article is sourced, and it gives plenty of information on the ethnic groups history and population distribution. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- I understand that there is variation within broad groups, but such variation can be noted in more general articles. For instance, British people vary in terms of race, ethnicity, religion, etc. but there is still an article called British people which explains these variations. I disagree that there is not harm in keeping the articles as they stand. Not only do most of them lack adequate references, many contain misleading "estimates" of population sizes which are attributed to sources that in no way support the claims being made. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete- As per rationals mentioned above. Specific articles for every such group is not required. Most of these articles are not informative and poorly sourced. I am amazed to see the articles like Saint Kitts and Nevisian British, Montserratian British, Grenadian British. British Nepali, etc. I would not surprise if they would have been nominated for CSD-A7 group (because of notability rational within article). Apart from that these article fails to maintain Encyclopedic nature. Hitro 17:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think the only reason you mentioned the Saint Kitts and Nevisian British article is because of the strange name, it is deifnately worth keeping, as there clearly is enough information about the ethnic group, as well as it listing the many famous British people of Saint Kitts and Nevis descent.Stevvvv4444 (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- None of which is referenced, I note. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- You have just sourced the actual figure of Saint Kitts and Nevis born people in the UK, when you are clearly going to go ahead and delete all the articles listed above.Stevvvv4444 (talk) 18:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- I referenced it, yes, and it's the only sourced statement in the whole article. A single population figure does not make a whole article. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- I am not amazed of strange name. This article as well as most of the others do not explain why these group are significant. 6519 people, I doubt whether the term "Saint Kitts and Nevisian British" exists or not. FYI, Google throws total of 12 pages all on wiki mirror when you search for Saint Kitts and Nevisian British within quotes (which means exact words or phrase).Hitro 17:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment-British African-Caribbean community is enough for all countries in Caribbean islands. Information about many of the articles nominated here are covered within that article. No need for separate article for every country. Hitro 17:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- I am not amazed of strange name. This article as well as most of the others do not explain why these group are significant. 6519 people, I doubt whether the term "Saint Kitts and Nevisian British" exists or not. FYI, Google throws total of 12 pages all on wiki mirror when you search for Saint Kitts and Nevisian British within quotes (which means exact words or phrase).Hitro 17:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- I referenced it, yes, and it's the only sourced statement in the whole article. A single population figure does not make a whole article. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- You have just sourced the actual figure of Saint Kitts and Nevis born people in the UK, when you are clearly going to go ahead and delete all the articles listed above.Stevvvv4444 (talk) 18:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- None of which is referenced, I note. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think the only reason you mentioned the Saint Kitts and Nevisian British article is because of the strange name, it is deifnately worth keeping, as there clearly is enough information about the ethnic group, as well as it listing the many famous British people of Saint Kitts and Nevis descent.Stevvvv4444 (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Delete Agree 100% with nom. I would also agree that we do not need a Category:People of Nigerian descent and a Category:Nigerian people, and a Nigerian British, much less an article that provides nothing but filler. I propose, if these are deleted, to do the same with [[1]], leave categories and articles to do the work of ethnic background identification for Americans and British. Bulldog123 (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment (additional to my "Keep" above): note that there are many articles (not just subcategories) at Category:Ethnic groups in the United States and Category:Ethnic groups in Australia. The wording of the article titles here may be "neologisms", but their subject matter is not a set of neologisms but a set of well-established groups of real people, with distinct identities (try telling a Canadian that they should be lumped in with a "North American" article... that's the same as saying that people from St Kitts and Nevis are just part of the Caribbean population). PamD (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Once again, I'm not saying that they should be "lumped together". Being in the same article doesn't mean that the differences between groups can't be outlined. There simply isn't enough notable information on these groups for them all to have individual articles. Being distinct doesn't in itself constitute notability. I'm distinct from my next-door neighbour, but I don't have my own article. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- There may be a case for replacing some of these articles with broader ones which have sections on the seperate countries - for example all the Caribbean countries could be grouped together as Caribbean British, with subheads for Jamaican British, St Lucian British or whatever (I have no idea how appropriate this would be, this is just a random example). Many of the criticisms made here are either reasons to fix rather than to delete, or reasons to delete some but not all of these articles. Why should a well sourced article be deleted because a similar article isn't? For that matter, why should a badly sourced article be deleted if the sources are out there? --Helenalex (talk) 00:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- I would have loved to have nominated all of these articles individually so that we could debate each on its merits. However, that would have caused chaos at AfD so I nominated those articles which I thought weren't notable together. This isn't just about referencing, it's also about notability. Note that I haven't nominated British Indian, for example, which is clearly notable. Saint Kitts and Nevisian British, not so much... Cordless Larry (talk) 00:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)