Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries by British immigrants

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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by British immigrants[edit]

What is the point of having an article about the numbers of Britfаgs living in other countries? We don't do this for other nations. NavyDrinker (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems to be valid information but surely not significant or notable enough to deserve its own article. Nyttend (talk) 14:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Was interesting and notable to me (which is why I made the article). Indeed, the fact that the BBC did a special report on the subject seems to indicate the interest of many people in the subject. I think this is a useful companion to articles about British demographics as well as British history (ie highlighting countries where Britain retains a significant, if unofficial, presence). TastyCakes (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Just found this very useful information, wish there was some for more diasporas. Merge with British diaspora perhaps? Dex1337 (talk) 14:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Ya I talked to a guy on the article's talk page about that. I guess it could be merged or renamed but to me it doesn't seem to be a diaspora article since it's not about the descendants of British people but rather people with British citizenship living outside Britain. It also seems a little long to merge into the British diaspora article... However, I agree the article doesn't have a very good name, but I couldn't think of anything better. TastyCakes (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, Navy drinker please be civil. "Britfags" isn't acceptable language around here. TastyCakes (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Britfаgs" is what people call them on 4chan. I just like speaking like that.--NavyDrinker (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - This isn't 4chan and if you keep using insulting language like that you'll be blocked. TastyCakes (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Good list. Well referenced. Would like to see such a list for a few other nations. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or merge. This list could be trimmed down to say, the top 10 and merged into another article. On the other hand, there is an article called Immigration to the United Kingdom since 1922, so shouldn't we delete that one too? JulieSpaulding (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename - it is primarily list of Britons, not list of countries. Merging with British diaspora is a second option, perhaps, if someone takes care to expand it into an article, rather than a pileup of lists. NVO (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps a new article, British emigrants, could be made and the British diaspora article could be merged with this one into it? I kind of thing a list this long would look strange in an article... And I don't really support cutting it down into a "top 10 list" or something like that. TastyCakes (talk) 22:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge: information is relevant but is totally based on one primary source, so it sounds like original research and should not be a standalone article. It could be merged to another article. Lechatjaune (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Primary? A census questionnaire is primary. A compilation of these papers in the original census stats is primary. But numbers report by BBC is at best tertiary, unless they actually did the count. NVO (talk) 08:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result of a statistic research is obvious primary, right? If BBC reports that, it is yet primary. If BBC had carried out a deeper analysis taking in account several different primary sources, it would be secondary source. Tertiary source consists of very well consolidate information. Lechatjaune (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I am not saying the source is not reliable, I am just saying it is primary, since the all information is original. BBC didn't improved the quality of the study by doing further research. Nor am I saying the list should be deleted but better organized. The article might be renamed to British emmigration in order to motivate other editors to expand it. Lechatjaune (talk) 13:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appropriate information for an encyclopedia. There are multiple sources available, and they should be included.It would be good to do this for other nations also. DGG (talk) 23:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. "British Diaspora" is a totally inappropriate merge target because this article is talking about British expatriates and emigrants in the 21st Century, while British Diaspora is talking about a historical phenomenon (and actually there were several diasporas, each of which could probably merit its own article). I dare say the majority of Wikipedians originate from a British diaspora at some point in history, but this is a much more focused and defined article.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree with Marshall. A look at BBC source somehow persuades me that they did in fact list British nationals, so the terms emigrants is not applicable, and a diaspora is by definition a far wider terms. Unless more sources are involved, emigrants and diaspora should be avoided. NVO. P.S. Aren't majority of wikipedians from India? (talk) 08:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and block the nominator for his utter lack of civility. We don't need him and his unrepenting behaviour [1] on Wikipedia. Equendil Talk 01:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is actually encyclopedic content that has been split off (for apparently good reasons) the parent British people. Nergaal (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So... Could we close this AFD? TastyCakes (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2009 (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.