Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afro Lusitanic American

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 DELETE. "An Afro Lusitanic American is an inhabitant of Brazil who is of African ancestry..." - this clearly describes an Afro-Brazilian, for which there is already an article. Lusitanic is apparently a neologism; the adjective actually used is "Portugese". Herostratus 13:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afro Lusitanic American[edit]

Already Lusitanic seems to be a neologism, but this term is hardly used by anyone and the article is an unnecessary fork of Afro-Brazilian Tikiwont 11:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletions. -- Tikiwont 11:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lusitanic is a very, very old word which was once used to describe items or people coming from the ancient Roman province of Lusitania. I don't see any references to it being used in the above senses today, though. --Charlene 11:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was referring mostly to Lusitanic as now used in an English context, but in any case this nomination is not about the Lusitanic artcile, but about the further derivates. --Tikiwont 11:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If an Hispanic American is defined as a Spanish speaking resident of the Americas or someone originating from Spain, then there is no way to logically avoid the fact that a Lusitanic American is a Portuguese speaking resident of the Americas or someone originating from Portugal. That is why these two articles are needed--in order to emphasize that fact. Keraunos 13:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we should not have an article about people just to emphasize an argument about their possible name nor confuse logic and fact. Even if Afro Lusitanic American was a common name for Brazilian citizens who are black or part-black, we would mention it at the artciel in question, redriect and possibly dispute the best name according to WP:NAME. What counts is the verifiable fact of the name actually being used, not whether wikipedians find it logical or not. And I am not aware of any such sources. Moreover, your logical argument extends at most to Luso-American, which is as ambiguous as Hispanic American (The latter is actually currently a disambiguation page offering a sligtly different take than yours) as it either may refer to someone from the U.S. or not. If you add a third term, things get complicated and the term Afro Hispanic American isn't very common either nor do we have an article. As far as sourcable, both could be mentioend e.g. in Afro-Latin American, but all of this is no reason to have a content fork.--Tikiwont 17:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete per nom as cumbersome unsourced neologism, or redirect to Afro-Brazilian and Euro-Brazilian. Other X-American articles use the term as the adjectives for the United States, not the western hemisphere. Chris 00:48, 11 June 2007 (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.