Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Venezuelan 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 Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuelan British[edit]

Nothing in the article establishes that this is a notable intersection as required by WP:DIRECTORY. I quote: "Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon". Cordless Larry (talk) 11:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. —Cordless Larry (talk) 11:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Cordless Larry (talk) 11:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Latin American Britons. It is unnotable. ApprenticeFan (talk) 11:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable ethnic group. Improve, don't delete (and keep proposing deletion for dozens of ethnic groups articles, seriously depleting our encyclopedia). Our energies should be focused on improving our content, not insisting on depleting it. Badagnani (talk) 18:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would improve it if I could find sources that prove that this group is notable, as I did with Cypriot British, but I can't so I've nominated it for deletion. Please provide a reason why you think this intersection is notable. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is only one nationality which is British. Nationality is not ethnicity. Archivey (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- A search for sources that would establish notability turns up nothing. Reyk _YO! 22:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as for any other group of any significance--this is about 4,000 people. The above comment would appear to me to be an expression of inappropriate political feelings. It doesn't even apply--the article includes those immigrants who are not yet UK nationals. The example in NOT is ""People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y" which is usually a very much more over-detailed cross-classification than this one. DGG (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you referring to my comment? Reyk _YO! 22:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry--apparent edit conflict, the comment by Archivey just above yours. DGG (talk) 05:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That makes more sense. Reyk _YO! 08:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if Archivey would explain what they meant by their comment more fully, I think. I'm not sure it was meant in the way that it might have been interpreted. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Significance is not determined by numbers. 4,000 people is not particularly big for a migrant group --- in my experience writing and saving these articles, that number is right around/below the usual threshold at which groups tend to get enough published about them by journalists, scholars, etc. to meet the general notability guideline. Certainly, groups smaller than this have been proven notable, but that's by virtue of people actually finding the sources about them and putting them in the article. cab (talk) 09:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are clearly people who have links to both Venezuala and Britain but I don't see there being any evidence of "Venezuelan British" being a noted or accepted term for such a group - or any coverage detailing the group (its history, culture, etc.). Barring any evidence of reliable sources covering the group (that amount to more than a numerical statistic in a survey) I do not see how an article is possible. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original work, if no one else has written about the group we cannot cobble together a piece that identifies them as one. Guest9999 (talk) 08:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note, a somewhat related discussion referring to numerically smaller groups (around 300 - 900 individuals) can be found here. Guest9999 (talk) 09:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regardless of what name you want to call this group of people by, the usual barrage of searches—"venezuelans * in (london|britain|the united kingdom|the uk)" or in Spanish, "venezolan(a/o/os) * en (londres/inglaterra/reino unido)"—does not reveal any reliable sources about them, just blogs, yahoo groups, trivial mentions, a bunch of junk about the embassy, and one community association [1]. cab (talk) 09:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, small group with no shown impact. Punkmorten (talk) 12:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 'Keep' would make sense for a group of any significance--except that none whatsoever has been shown or even suggested. Cobbling together an adjective and a noun version of a nationality doesn't automatically signify anything particular. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 01:36, 26 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.