Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethiopian Brazilian

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. Closing per obvious consensus. — Aitias // discussion 03:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopian Brazilian

Skanter is at it again, creating his not notable "Something-Brazilian" pages about non notable communities in Brazil. This time it's his/her's sockpuppet, named Skanter3. This article lacks sources, and it has no notability. Just like I said in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angolan Brazilian, this article not about Afro Brazilians because its hard to trace the origins of Afro Brazilians because of slavery. Lehoiberri (talk) 02:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Good grief, if we had an article for all the racial permutations... At first I thought it was going to be a new personal hair removal process, and alas, that would have been more interesting than what I found at the article page. Proxy User (talk) 04:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because there is a notable individual listed in the article. Badagnani (talk) 07:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot see how an article like this will ever have any reasonable content. I shy away from any hybrid-race article, because it's just not notable. Canadian-Brazilian? Austalian-Latvian? Where does it end? Easy delete here. Timneu22 (talk) 12:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's an inexpandable dicdef. If the size of the group is not even known, that's a good indication an article shouldn't exist. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A new record. Unlike the empty categories with population 600 or 100, this list is apparently "Population: 1". Normally I'd say redirect to the name of the one guy on the list, but I don't want to encourage the "fill the niche" method for making articles. Mandsford (talk) 14:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's absolutely nothing in the article that establishes notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources that establishes that this is a notable community. Zero Google hits. Guest9999 (talk) 23:42, 31 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.