Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afghan British

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 No consensus - this AfD is a true mess. I'm afraid that this is almost evenly split, with strong opinions on either side, and not a lot of agreement or strongly convincing force from either divide either. There was also much mis-application of policy; many of the keeps basically cited USEFUL, while the deletes cited policies such as OR as grounds for deletion, which is strictly not valid grounds for deletion by itself, considering that many of tehse articles did have some referencing. This is pretty much the archetype of a lack of any consensus. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Afghan British[edit]

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)[reply]

Strong delete: per rationale in nomination and policied cited therein. --Jza84 | Talk 23:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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? Satu Suro 00:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The titles are neologisms, which is part of the reason I have nominated them. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in that case, wikipedia is not a sandbox for funny ideas that do not relate to the real world (whatever that is) Satu Suro 00:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agreed, although something like Baltic British would be a neologism too, I think. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nigerian British coul probably be salvaged. Zagalejo^^^ 02:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but would need a reference or two first! Paulbrock (talk) 18:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's one to start you off. Zagalejo^^^ 18:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Testmasterflex (talk • contribs) 04:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 12:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree with anon. A lot of them are certainly notable, and the ones Cordless Larry mentioned appear to be the less notable ones. There are several stub and start articles that are related to ethnicity, and we don't see them all being tagged and listed as articles for deletion, do we? A lot of them are still in their early stages, and to be fair, they can't suddenly become featured articles the day they are created—it takes time. Now, don't take this personally, but I really don't see why we need to AFD list every single damn article that is related to British dual ethnicity. ~ Troy (talk) 23:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

And please don't remove AfD templates. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

None of which is referenced, I note. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I understand, but in any case, the articles need to have time and patience if you're ever going to give them a chance. I'm entirely sure that the articles' creators never intended for this. ~ Troy (talk) 23:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of correlation between referencing and notability. Indeed the WP definition of notability is related to the available references. Whilst the AFD was made in good faith, I do feel that too many articles are included here which should be judged on their own merit. Paulbrock (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but delete articles with little or no results of pages with the same title on Google e.g. Bolivian British and keep those with more result returned like Brazilian, Colombian and Nigerian British especially where there are more results on Google that accredit the potential noteworthiness of the groups. The latter, especially are notable in that they are the largest of the diaspora outside Nigeria and there are enough famous people with worthy contributions to the UK of Nigerian descent, for a decent well referenced article to be put together. Much harder with Bulgarian, Basque, Maltese Georgian and Salvadorean British (WTF?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.249.215 (talk) 05:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have already said above, which ones should definately stay, but I am clueless to why the absolutely diabolical article Baltic people in the United Kingdom is not up for nomination, it has about two words in the entire article, neither of which are sourced. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only nominated the ones that are neologisms here, and I was going to deal with articles such as that one later. Actually, I put a proposed deletion template on it but it was removed because apparently it's controversial enough to need to go to AfD. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. There appears to be no rationale for deleting all of the articles. If "many" of the articles are unreferenced, that does not make it legitimate to delete all of them as a lot of these articles are simply in their early stages (as in you can't suddenly create a featured article). Also, considering the depth of how many articles are involved, there is simply no way to delete them all on the same basis. There needs to be a way to assess the worst articles first in a way that can be humanely kept track of. The article titles should be sorted and, as Helenalex said, grouped under less titles to allow for more composition. I agree that they need to be worked on and properly organized—or else there really wouldn't be much point in us being here. However, simply deleting them all will not solve the problem, and quite frankly, makes it harder to properly assess or deal with. ~ Troy (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, these are the worst offenders, picked from an even broader selection of articles. There is a list here detailing the good, the bad, and the ugly (so to speak) of this list. Also, I appreciate your comment, but these are, quite simply, original research no matter how we present these for deletion. --Jza84 | Talk 23:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jza84, I know what you mean, but I'm still pretty sure that they can be worked on. However, what perplexes me is simply that I can't see how they should all be deleted just like that. I still think that there needs to be time to give them a chance, or else it will be harder to re-create the more notable ones (ie: ones that don't lack notability but just happen to need better sourcing or were recently started). While we obviously can't nominate each one that needs to be looked at, we still need to properly assess each and every one before doing away with these articles. Also, I'm sure that we could find sources for ones that have any significance at all. ~ Troy (talk) 23:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're all in agreement that one solution does not fit all of these. It will be helpful if we group them all according to what should be done with them, as in:

KEEP: Article is basically okay and subject group is notable.
FIX: Subject group is notable but article needs to be rewritten and/or properly sourced.
RENAME: Article is basically okay and subject group is notable but title is a neologism.
FIX AND RENAME: Both of above issues.
MERGE into broader article, generally covering the whole area/continent.
DELETE: Subject group is not notable.

The vast majority, along with quite a few on Larry's 'not sure' list can probably be merged into larger articles dealing with people from a particular geographical area - Eastern Europe, South East Asia, etc. In some cases these articles don't yet exist, but I think they should. There will probably be problems with the middle east - currently there is a page on British Arabs which it would not be appropriate to put Kurds, Armenians, Israelis and probably other groups into. Creating Middle Eastern Britons with the British Arabs page forking off from this should work, I hope.

The other issue is Oceania (a term which no one from that region actually uses). Lumping Australians and New Zealanders in with Pacific Islanders in the United Kingdom is misleading; Australians in Britain (not nfd even though it's awful) should be fixed and New Zealander Briton renamed to New Zealanders in Britain and have more references added. The other option is merging them into Immigrants from the white Commonwealth in Britain along with Canadians and white South Africans, but this would be problematic because plenty of NZers and Aussies are not white.

There are other articles which are good enough to be kept, like Brazilian British - this should stay as an article, forked from Latin American Britons. --Helenalex (talk) 02:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Yeah, I could settle for that. The issue is that there are so many articles to deal with that there simply isn't a way to treat them all in the same manner. ~ Troy (talk) 04:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody have an argument that isn't WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS? Bulldog123 (talk) 04:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible keep - Notable intersections of nationality. This proposal is highly disruptive to our project. Badagnani (talk) 04:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note The above user seems to have found his way here by stalking my contribs. It's likely he voted "strongest possible keep" because I voted delete. Perhaps if you provide a more legitimate reasoning, people can take your !vote seriously. Bulldog123 (talk) 05:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I ask, in all good faith, that the above editor moderate his/her tone. I voted "keep" because I believe these articles to be notable and valuable to our project, and, hence, our readers, who will come to our encyclopedia wishing to find this information--this reason, and no other. Badagnani (talk) 05:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit you came to this article by chance? By the way, "not notable" isn't the reason for deletion. So "notable" doesn't seem to conflict with the deletion rationale. Bulldog123 (talk) 06:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No, it was not by chance, but by the simple fact that I had had some of them on my watchlist from the last time you had attempted to delete many of them. Badagnani (talk) 07:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; given the above discussion, it seems many of these are neologisms. Aggregation would be much better than the existing situation. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (after edit conflict): the nominator's reference to WP:NEO is a red herring: the topic of each article is an existing group of people, not a newly-coined word or phrase. See Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms#Articles_wrongly_titled_as_neologisms. We need "a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English", and it might be that "Foo-ians in the United Kingdom" or "Foo-ian people in the United Kingdom" or similar would be better titles for some of these articles (with redirects from current titles and anything else plausible). Bad choice of title is not a reason for deletion. As for WP:NOR, some of it is sourced and some needs better sources, but the existence of the people is not OR. PamD (talk) 07:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. These are neologisms which are rarely, if ever, used and hence not notable. Malcolm XIV (talk) 10:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename or alter content as needed to comply with neologisms and WP:OR requirements. The subject of "British citizens of Japanese ancestry" or "Ethnic Japanese with British citizenship" or whatever we want to call it is a valid topic and one of interest. It should not be upmerged to "East Asians in Britain" or "British Asians" or whatever the term is, because not all Asians are the same - they came to Britain at different times, for different reasons, and play different roles in society today. The key focus here should not be on the titles of the pages, whether they are neologisms or not, because the topics they describe are still perfectly valid. And as for the question of it being Original Research, there are sources out there on these topics, and many of these articles do cite sources. So it's not original research, it's using sources already out there; old research. LordAmeth (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If sources exist, they need to be cited, and cited now. "Unverifiable material may be removed at any time". Indeed, as I've said futher up, if we remove the uncited stuff, we're left with (in most cases) a single sentence, one which is based on a source that doesn't even mention these neologisms by name anyway. In that capacity these are also breaches of WP:SYNTH. --Jza84 | Talk 14:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have not contributed to any of these articles, and so cannot comment on the extent to which they may be original research. However, I think there is no need to be hung-up on the notion that it's a neologism. What's important is not the term we use (Japanese-British, Japanese Brits, UK Citizens of Japanese ancestry), but the fact that the topic is a valid one; regardless of what we call it, we are not inventing, creating a topic, we are discussing something very real. You're misinterpreting what the rules against neologisms are aimed at. LordAmeth (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No. Re-read my point. I'm saying these should go because they are either a) unverifiable, or b) a synthesis of a single statistic woven out into bogus articles. I'm not coming into this from the neologism angle, but that this breach fundamental editorial guidelines - they're bad for the project with little scope of expansion. --Jza84 | Talk 15:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. or nominate French American, Armenian American, etc. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 17:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- French American is not a neologism, and is based on real world practice. The ones listed above are not, so your reasons to keep are not clear. --Jza84 | Talk 17:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. --Admiral Norton ^(talk) 17:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~- in my thinking all similar articles are example of nationalism and they need to be deleted (and I will vote for that deleting). Because this is discussion about deleting of only 1 article I must vote keep.--Rjecina (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I believe the entire list is up for deletion, not just a single article as you had assumed. Badagnani (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- I believe that all similar articles must be deleted. We are not having only articles about British, but about many other nations/states. In my thinking all this articles must be deleted--Rjecina (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there should be consistency across Wikipedia, but with all due respect it was enough of an effort to nominate this group of articles without trying to add all similar ones! The logic of opposing this nomination because you want similar articles deleted is lost on me. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is OK. I am changing vote to neutral.--Rjecina (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*KEEP OR MERGE also Naming Conventions - A large percentage of people in this debate seem to be focused only on the name of the article and not its actual content, many of the articles may not be named to peoples likings, but the truth is the terms above can be justified through the use of Asian British, Black, British, Chinese British, White British etc in the actual United Kingdom census, many people say the other way round is more common in the UK, others think a title such as Asians in the United Kingdom would be better, this is an argument in itself, and in this case it is actually more important to be deciding whether to improve, merge or delete the articles listed above. Each has their negatives, but I believe it would be in Wikipedias best interests to keep them or possibly merge them into subtitles of larger groups....deleting is not an option, and each subgroup has its own distinct culture etc (even within the Caribbean countries, ethnic makeup etc are considerably varied), and although there is an article of the overall British African Caribbean community, the sub articles should be kept, and improved as well as being better sourced (there are many articles across Wikipedia which are more or less identical to these apart from they are representing ethnic groups in the USA, Canada, Australia, Brazil.....) Also I believe that the following articles should definately stay due to their notability and the large populations they represent, I am sure many will agree:

Afghan, Burmese, Brazilian, Colombian, Ecuadorian, Nigerian, Egyptian, Filipino, Japanese, Lebanese, New Zealander, Somali, Yemeni (which is probably the best citied out of all the articles), amongst possible others

Stevvvv4444 (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I've striken part of your comment with this signature, rationale being that you've already "voted" above once already. --Jza84 | Talk 19:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The truth is the terms above can be justified through the use of Asian British, Black, British, Chinese British, White British etc." - those are all recognised terms and I'm not proposing that any of those articles be deleted. But terms such as "Georgian British", "Croatian British" etc. are pure neologisms. As for the content of the articles, the vast majority of it is unsourced. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Articles about Ethnic Groups, these help show the diversity of the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.157.107 (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that as a valid reason for keeping these articles. The ethnic diversity of the UK should be reflected at United Kingdom and Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom, but it's no reason for these articles to exist per se. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I also point out that the opinions of anonymous editors are liable to be disregarded per this. You should log in if you wish your view to be taken into account. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Already we have three IPs with strangely similar IPs voting "Keep." 71.241.157.107, 82.45.249.215, and 86.53.63.209. Bulldog123 (talk) 00:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- not related. They are 3 different internet providers from 2 different states (UK and US). If they are somebody puppet you must ask checkuser.--Rjecina (talk) 01:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with Rjecina.
    It doesn't look like they match ([2] [3] [4] WHOIS queries for those IPs, respectively—Verizon Internet Services Inc. for the first one in Reston, Virginia; the other two might have just happened to come across). I have noticed that a LOT of the vandals I revert over recent weeks are based on that first ISP in Reston, Virginia (most recently as 71.241.157.81), so that should be checked over. ~ Troy (talk) 01:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- As per my unofficial check, I can confirm this is not a case of Sockpuppetry. First IP originates from Massapequa, NY, second originates from London and third from Hawick, Scotland. We should get on with main discussion. Hitro 06:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok. How does 71 (and 82, for that matter) not count as single purpose accounts? They don't have to be the same person - they were still WP:CANVASSed over here. If you're all confident this isn't someone's IP here, then you should realize IPs don't have watchpages. Bulldog123 (talk) 08:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are not accounts. This is not a vote. Please focus on content not contributors. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I feel you would have a different opinion on that if all the IPs said to "delete?" Bulldog123 (talk) 19:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I think these (from what ive seen) have some quite useful information and shouldn't be deleted. Maybe a few obscure ones. But the majority is rather informative. Taifar ious1 07:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're not addressing the argument. It shouldn't matter whether this has useful information. The information is still on their article. Bulldog123 (talk) 08:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and merge - This AfD is really too big. Neology is a valid concern with some of these articles, when there have been previous debates over for example whether Chinese British or British Chinese is the right title for an article, we have nothing to go on with some of these because there are no references that they are considered a group. Apparently the term 'Bolivian British' appears on only two blogs, but is there evidence that 'British Bolivian' is more common or even more correct? If it was more notable we would probably know. Some of these articles do not have the references to support them. Saint Kitts and Nevisian British is a prime example. It should probably be merged to an article about Caribbean immigration to the UK. The previous discussion at Wikipedia_talk:UK_Wikipedians'_notice_board/Archive_13#Renaming_of_articles_on_minor_ethnic_groups_in_Britain showed what a mess all these article titles are, but the discussion ultimately proved to be not that effective, and I think this AfD is going the same way. There are probably some valid articles here, if the names can be got right, and the level of aggregation can be supported by content and references. I understand completely why this AfD was raised but I think these articles need to be looked at individually. I do not see any titles above that can't be fixed through merging or renaming. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't rush to delete the lot. This is an extraordinary nomination. I don't have the time or stamina to look through all the articles and I don't suppose many other people do either. This being so, I don't think they should all be deleted. On the other hand I don't want either to suggest keeping the lot (more or less ruling out future deletion) or to criticize the good faith of the nominator. /// Let's look again at the nomination. It's some way above, so I hope nobody minds this repetition: 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. /// First, "avoid neologisms". I'd never heard of (say) "Montserratian British" and am willing to believe that it's a neologism. I could check this question at google but let's suppose for a minute that yes, it is a neologism. Yet the article is not about the neologism; it's about an understandable and arguably significant subject matter that has been described with a neologism. The solution to this is retitling. /// Secondly, "Wikipedia:No original research". This is important, but it's a matter for {{fact}} and if that has no effect then partial deletion. /// Thirdly, "articles for every conceivable group in the UK regardless of notabilty". Like it or (if you're a reincarnation of Enoch Powell) loathe it, Britain is (and has long been) multiethnic. There aren't that many nations in the world (or transnational ethnic groups), so the notion that Bhutanese British or Saami British were to get articles leaves me unfazed. (I'd draw the line at Parisian British, etc, or any division into Bolivian English, Bolivian Welsh, etc.; and yes, I know that Paris is more populous than Bhutan.) I mean, are groups of people -- often in the tens of thousands -- so much less significant than this lot? /// Fourthly, "Better covered at articles such as British Asian, Latin American Britons, etc" One problem is that these do indeed have established meanings. The former has at least a strong suggestion of the Indian subcontinent and while I think it should cover Lebanon and Japan I don't know if it does. Meanwhile, does "Latin America" cover US citizens who speak Spanish as a first language? Tama1988 (talk) 10:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I appreciate your point about the titles, and if the articles are kept then they should be renamed in my opinion. They would also need a lot of editing to remove unsourced content - particularly the unreferenced estimates of population sizes which, as far as I can tell, are purely guesses on the part of editors. Hopefully, if nothing else, this nomination will spur people into action so that we can get these type of articles in a much better state. However, a few points: firstly, you say that there aren't many nations in the world, but there are potentially thousands depending on you definition of a nation. Perhaps you meant nation state rather than nation? Secondly, you seem to be suggesting that there should be articles about these groups simply because the groups exist, but this doesn't equate with notability. I exist, but I make no claim that there should be an article about myself. Finally, I would like to point out (again) that this nomination has nothing to do with not wanting recognising the multiethnic nature of the UK, as should be clear from my strong line against racism on Wikipedia demonstrated here, here and here. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I have attempted to improve the article Antiguan British (see British people of Antiguan descent), I have sourced all information, and deleted information that doesn't have one. i would like to see what other people think of this article, I know some of the information links strongly to other Caribbean groups, but it is important to distinguish each one. It is definatley worth keeping the article, as it inlcludes information on the actual population of Antigua and Barbuda born people in the UK, as well as an important list of British people of Antigua and Barbuda descent. Also notice the name change.....I think it will be accepted my most people. Thanks, and I know this article could be improved further. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly better but there are still unsourced statements. I don't see how "109th most common out of all nations" is supported by the reference given that not all countries of birth are listed in that spreadsheet, for instance, plus none of the notable people are referenced. I'm also not convinced about the title since not all people born in Antigua and living in the UK are likely to consider themselves British or be British nationals. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Nigerian British article could be improved quite easily: here are a few sources: [5], [6], [7]. I'd start cleaning up that article myself, but I already have my hands full with another AFD. Still, the sources are out there for anyone who is interested. Zagalejo^^^ 18:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I was disappointed at the process here when I noticed that someone advocating deletion of these articles said that we already have a good comprehensive article on the subject called Ethnic groups of the United Kingdom, because that article is for the most part merely a list of these articles nominated for deletion here. I actually spent quite a bit of time using some VBA code to create a merge of these articles, and then went to add it to the above article, only to realize that it was a list of these articles, and would be way to long if the content was merged in. Surely the ethnic makeup of a huge nation could not be argued to be non-notable, and surely none of the terms are neologisms. So then we get to unsourced material. Any contentious or POV material can be edited out and any material lacking proper referencing could be marked by the appropriate maintenance template. This deletion nomination is simply fooey. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Drive by tagging" with appropriate maintenance notices isn't going to help a produce a great encyclopedia. Like I've said before, some of these articles are based on a single statistic, which doesn't mention the title of the article by name, and is never likely to be expanded with verifiable material. Futhermore, I think there is some misunderstanding as to what is an ethnic group - anybody can choose to be any ethnic group they desire. That is to say, one could identify as being ethnically Mancunian. The problem is, as an encyclopedia, we should be writing about officially recognised ethnic groups, not inventing ones for every nationality in the world (which I should add, nationalities are not coterminate with ethnic groups - China has many ethnic groups). Therefore, I'm not sure your comment that this "is fooey" is entirely helpful. --Jza84 | Talk 00:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - In any case, there are too many ethnic groups in the UK for them to be properly covered in that article. I think Jerry is trying to say that deleting all of these articles is not the best way to deal with them, and also, it seems as though proper referencing can be easily dealt with for many of the more notable ethnic groups. ~ Troy (talk) 02:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:49, 13 September 2008 (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.