Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trinidadian and Tobagonian Australians

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. Hut 8.5 21:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trinidadian and Tobagonian Australians[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is about a very small group of people, not the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - in my opinion, this article is harmless. It's correctly sourced and well written, and concise. It's entirely possible that someone will search for this and this information won't exist in its present form anywhere else on the Internet. - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOHARM and WP:EVERYTHING are not reasons for keeping. LibStar (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. No indication of this topic's importance or notability. The group is otherwise statistically insignificant. Cjhard (talk) 10:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NeutralKeep per Richard Cavell. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 11:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richardcavell and Darylgolden: there are plenty of topics that are harmless, but if they are not notable, then Wikipedia policy is not to have articles about them. I think that if this article is to survive, then we need to see evidence of notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordless Larry: Changing my vote to neutral. No doubt "it's harmless" was a poor argument. However the information in this article is undoubtedly useful, and it should perhaps be merged elsewhere. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 11:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No question this is well outside notability - not within cooee of WP:GNG. Frickeg (talk) 10:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is zero evidence that this community of 2000 odd in a population of 24 million has achieved notable achievements. Individual achievements can be covered in person articles. LibStar (talk) 16:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is a non-notable census statistic. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2017 (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.