Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argentine Australian

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. Stifle (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Argentine Australian[edit]

Relisting a few of the (I hope) uncontroversial ones from this discussion. These articles are yet more of the "X-ian Y-ian" articles about people from country X living in country Y. They contain no assertion of notability and are sourced only by census info, if that. Consensus at similar discussions has been to delete

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge all to Demographics of Australia. McWomble (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep all since additional information from reliable sources has been added. McWomble (talk) 10:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Argentine Australian and Ethiopian Australian for being unsourced beyond some census data. In the case of Danish Australian, I'd say Keep the Danish. I think there's already some notability shown in the article, such as the Premier of Queensland, analogous to the governor of an American state, and an appreciable population. In doing some more searching, I note that there's a "Danish Australian Cultural Society" [1] and that the Dane community has been written about in books [2]. Unlike the other two articles, I think that this one can be developed. Mandsford (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge/redirect all three. A list of notable persons iMHO is hardly a notability criterion. If the Danish (or any other) diaspora in Australia is somehow nonably present (eg if the mentioned Cultural Society), then a separate artcle may be written. In the current state not enough text for separate pages. Twri (talk) 06:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Three, all good examples of non-notable nationality intersections. The fact that a few notable people might have been Danish Australian, Martian Australian, or whatever isn't a good enough reason for keeping, in my view.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lankiveil (talk • contribs) 30 November 2008
Keep whatever is sourced and expanded by the end of this debate (I have expanded the Ethiopian Australian article, for example), redirect the others to Demographics of Australia#Ethnic groups. Jupp, James, ed. (2001), The Australian People: An Encyclopedia of the Nation, Its People and Their Origins, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-52180789-0 devotes at least a few thousand words to each of these populations and contains a bibliography pointing to further sources, so these articles could eventually be expanded. But in the mean time, if no one can be bothered to actually do the expansion, we should remove the unsourced content (namely, the infobox entries about their languages, areas of settlement, religions, and related groups) --- which leaves a near-blank page with a number and a dicdef --- and turn them into redirects. cab (talk) 14:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is what the deletion process should be about. I know, we see a lot of fighting words in these debates, but as a nominator pointed out to me once, the process can be a "win-win" situation. Articles that can be improved, often are made better. Articles whose existence can't be justified, after being given a chance (and that's what a nomination is) are weeded out. We all like Wikipedia (obviously) and even if we disagree about which direction it should go, we all want to keep it moving along. Mandsford (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, merge or improve; the loss of all data from similar articles that were not merged or improved was damaging to our project. Keep in mind (this is very important!) that not all three articles are equivalent; the second contains notable individuals and the third has quite a bit of historical context. Thus, these three articles should *not* have been proposed in the same proposal, and I ask that they be split, or the second and third be stricken from this proposal. Please be very careful when insisting that all data from particular articles be removed entirely from Wikipedia rather than merged. Keep in mind that although it's more time-consuming to improve an article oneself rather than propose it for deletion, such activity on WP can be very rewarding, and useful to our readers and the community as a whole. Badagnani (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Turbo-Delete again and again. Without sources or notability, it just doesn't belong here. Damaging to your project? Respectfully, Try another Wiki.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - even small minorities in Australia are significant, they are counted in the census and some are much discussed in the newspapers - something blows up and suddenly that minority is notable. AfD is not supposed to be a call for improving an article. The ethnic minority exists, is recognised by the Australian government and academic sources. --Matilda ^talk 22:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment each of these three articles has now been expanded with additional information on the history of immigration which describes why each of these small communities are notable within Australia. Did you know that
- ... most Argentinian immigration to Australia was in the 1970s but it was economic not political?
- ... that there were Danes on the Victorian goldfields, that the Danish community contributed significantly to the development of Australia's dairy industry in the late 19th century, that emigration of males meant cultural traditions were not easy to retain, there Danes were part of Australia's post war immigration scheme?
- ... that most Ethiopian refugees to Australia have 3-4 years of school attendance or less?

lots of my referencing has come from the Jupp book. I wish to acknowledge the expansion done by CaliforniaAliBaba to the Ethiopian Australian article. Every similar article can be improved - there are sources available of which the most notable is:

Jupp, James, ed. (2001), The Australian People: An Encyclopedia of the Nation, Its People and Their Origins, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-52180789-0

Not all of this book is viewable on-line but much of it is. There was a previous edition which is also viewable through Google books. --Matilda ^talk 00:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well done. Your contributions convinced me to change my !vote. McWomble (talk) 10:04, 2 December 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.