Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swedish diaspora

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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, but a rename is probably in order. I do not see a consensus below for a particular rename, nor am I about to impose one by fiat, so Mandsford's prophecy has come to fruition. I now punt to a talk page near you. postdlf (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish diaspora[edit]

Swedish diaspora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This topic of this article is a neologism constructed through wp:synth. The two sources that are used to support it do only use the phrase once, but are about other topics. This is conflict with WP:NEO which states that "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term.", and WP:RS which states that "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

There are exactly 13 references to "Swedish diaspora" in google scholar. The only one that mentions the phrase in the title is an MA thesis about Diasporic communities in Sweden who come from abroad[1] - here it is clearly used as a euphemism for immigrant communities in Sweden. None of the sources discuss the existence of an actual diasporic community of Swedes outside of Sweden.

The academic definition of the word diaspora is as a group of people living outside of their homeland but maintaning a sense of belonging to the ancestral home. This is the description given in the preface of the Encyclopedia of Diasporas: Immigrant and Refugee Cultures Around the World. Volume I: Overviews and Topics; Volume II: Diaspora Communities Melvin Ember, Carol R. Ember, Ian Skoggard (eds.)p. xiii) - which does btw. not mention Swedish or a Swedish diaspora even once in its almost 1000 pages. No evidence has been presented that Swedish communities outside of Sweden constitute an actual diaspora, rather than simple expatriate communities. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the Swrdish article on the same topic also does not use the term diaspora but is titled sv:Svenskättling - literally "Swedish descendant" which shows that not even swedes consider Swedish Americans to constitute a diaspora community but rather simply a group of Americans of Swedish descent.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. There is ample room in the encyclopedia to cover topics of note involving mass emigrations from Sweden and the communities resulting from such emigrations. That does not mean, however, that the concept of "Swedish diaspora" is notable or even commonly used, as it appears not to be. I urge people who are simply concerned with keeping related content to consider the best way of doing it before simply voting "keep" to this entry. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm changing my vote to it doesn't matter as long as we can discuss a name change. As Mandsford points out in his vote change there has been a significant addition of content. I believe this content does belong in its own entry. It doesn't much matter to me if this is deleted and the new entry is created or if this is kept and we discuss a name change. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mind if I format this in line with basic convention instead of the indent which makes it seem like you are responding to me instead of adding your own comment? Also, where is the argument here? I don't see one. Just a keep vote. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We are currently having this same exact discussion over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norwegian diaspora (2nd nomination). The word "diaspora" is not "neologism" as the nominator said, since the word has been around since 1881 according to Webster's dictionary, which gives a clear definition of the word.[2] Also, there is an article about diaspora on the Wikipedia, and well over a thousand articles with that word in their title. category:Diasporas has 245 subcategories in it. Sources exist for all notable migrations from any group, and they don't have to use the word "diaspora" in them to count. Same arguments from the same people that is going on elsewhere. Please don't nominate a thousand different articles, but instead wait for the outcome of these two. Dream Focus 23:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any editor who is able to read should be able to recognize that this is a gross misrepresentation of the rationale given in the nomination. I am not saying that the word diaspora is a neologism - I am saying that the word "Swedish diaspora" is. And yes per WP:RS and WP:NEO any source has to explicitly treat the topic of the article, and in order to establish notability the topic must have received substantial coverage - not just passing mention.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The list of fictional dogs doesn't need everything on the list to be referenced to someone who specifically called them a "fictional dog", using those exact words. And if someone called a dog a "canine" instead of a dog, you could still have the word "dog" in the article name, no one confused by that at all. Just pretend the word "diaspora" is "migrations". Would Swedish migrations sound fine to you? Dream Focus 23:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any sources about that?·Maunus·ƛ· 23:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Click on the links in the article. Swedish Americans links to an article that stats by saying "Swedish Americans are Americans of Swedish descent, especially the descendants of about 1.2 million immigrants from Sweden during 1885-1915." I'm sure this is all covered in various reliable sources, such as the census bureau.[3] Dream Focus 00:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why do those sources not call it a Swedish diaspora? Could it perhaps be because those 1.2 million migrants did not form an actual Diaspora community, but merely went on to become Americans of Swedish descent?·Maunus·ƛ· 00:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/diaspora the movement, migration, or scattering of a people away from an established or ancestral homeland <the black diaspora to northern cities>. You can also see http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/diaspora a group of people who live outside the area in which they had lived for a long time or in which their ancestors lived —usually singular ▪ the art of the African/Chinese diaspora ▪ members of the Diaspora [=Jewish people throughout the world who do not live in Israel] Dream Focus 00:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He is still hung up on the "magic word" concept. Dictionaries are about words, encyclopedias are about broader concepts. Wikipedia could have standardized on a number of terms for this concept, but "diaspora" became the standard. I don't think Sweden and Norway are the exceptions. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone actually rescues it. As it is, it's just an article about a the dictionary definition of a phrase that nobody actually uses. Renaming should be part of the rescue. I get tired of these articles called "______ish diaspora" anyway-- a diaspora is a forced scattering of an ethnic group, and not a generic term for emigration. Mandsford 00:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The stub has now been expanded from the initial two sentences to two paragraphs. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, we aren't !voting on the state of an article at any time, every notable topic starts off as a stub. We are !voting on the topic itself. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, do remember we are voting on the topic and that the notability of a topic is determined by substantial coverag in reliable sources not passing mention in tangentially related sources (WP:NEO).·Maunus·ƛ· 16:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep this is a descriptive term, so that bit about neologism seems hokey. Descriptive titles are not prescriptive. It is concise and succint, unless you want a long-assed title like Worldwide distribution of ethnic Swedes outside of traditional areas of Swedish population distribution. The state of the current article sucks, and needs expansion badly, but nominating it for deletion as a neologism seems very odd. That ethnic groups and their migrations are a subject of study by ethnologist should not be in dispute, that "diaspora" is a term used to describe some of these things should also not be in dispute. I fail to see how using a descriptive title is synthesizing a new fact, unless writing sentences that are not wholly plaigirism is also SYNTH. The current article doesn't actually cover anything, except that it says that it should cover something. 65.95.14.96 (talk) 04:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong communicate 15:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename - From our own article on diaspora: The notion of diaspora is often linked with the diasporic community harboring a longing for, or a wish to return to, the ancestral homeland, and generally with a maintenance of a separate ethnic identity over significant periods of time. I don't see any evidence of this being true among Swedish expatriates or their descendants, and I also don't see many sources using the word "diaspora" to describe this phenomenon. I'm not sure what the ideal title would be for the article, but something along the lines of Swedish emigration would work for me. SnottyWong communicate 15:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You should know better than using Wikipedia as a source in this type of recursive sourcing. It is like eating your own poo. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That bit was added to the article earlier this month by the person currently trying to delete this and the other diaspora article they nominated.[4] Does that text go along with what the source actually says? At its front it defines various worlds [5] Diaspora. A people dispersed by whatever cause to more than one location. The people dispersed to different lands may harbor thoughts of return, may not fully assimilate to their host countries, and may maintain relationships with other communities in the diaspora. It doesn't say it is the word is "often linked" to that, only that these things "may" happen. Go by the actual definition of the word, in a credible encyclopedia or dictionary, not what someone has recently decided to toss into a Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 15:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. This verges on a small group of editors using Wikipedia to publish their own novel view. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is a large group that created the 245 categories and over 500 articles in those categories. I am not sure what makes Swedes and Norwegians the exception, can you tell me what makes them exceptional to the term diaspora? Remember this isn't an article on the word, but the broader concept as defined by the dictionary definition of what defines a diaspora. Diaspora is just the word Wikipedians chose to standardize on. The exact word doesn't have to appear in the reference any more than 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests must appear in the text to be used as a reference. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -I'm with Slrubenstein. Using a dictionary definition in this way is OR. Dougweller (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of a racist thing to say. The definition is "the movement, migration, or scattering of a people away from an established or ancestral homeland". Can I assume that you think the Swedes aren't people? Is it because of the Ikea furniture or the Volvos? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is racist? To disagree with you?·Maunus·ƛ· 23:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's the Ikea stores, definitely! Still, nobody here is bigoted against persons whose ancestors spoke the Swedish language. I think the problem is in what many of see as misuse of the word diaspora, which was started long ago by someone, not among the debaters here, for no reason I can figure other than maybe they liked the way it sounded. Swedish emigration to other lands could be a notable topic, and the article seems to be moving in that direction. As for the Swedish race, I think Jim Thorpe won a few of those back in 1912... Mandsford 23:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I love the Ikea meatballs in gravy with lingonberries as well as the furniture. The concept of using diaspora in Wikipedia for an all inclusive name for the topic should be debated globally not article by article. I don't see the Swedes and Norwegians as being exceptions from how it is defined by Merriam- Webster. Others have a more narrow view, but Wikipedia already has adopted "diaspora" based on the inclusive Merriam-Webster definition User:Cordless Larry found a great article on the history of the term and how it had started out only referring to the Jews in exile and expanded over the years to the current inclusive definition of "people away from an established or ancestral homeland" and even beyond that where he finds a dozen uses that don't even follow that definition, like the Gay diaspora or White diaspora or Wealthy diaspora. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is no a dictionary and we don't rely on dictionary definitions for complex social science topics.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned elsewhere, there is no reliable source that says they are required to always have this desire, only that they may. And dictionaries are reliable sources, so when defining a word, that's the best source to use. Dream Focus 07:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We're using dictionaries to determine article titles now? My own experience with dictionaries is that they sometimes get specialist words wrong. I had an argument once with someone who found a dictionary that defined 'archaeology' as dealing with the ancient past and had a hard time convincing him that you can do archaeology in any time period. Using dictionaries in this way is not a good idea. --Dougweller (talk) 12:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just find a more credible dictionary. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/archaeology Are there any major publish dictionaries that would likely have incorrect definitions in them? Dream Focus 12:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is the name by consensus for for 245 articles and categories I don't think Swedes are somehow an exception from the other 244 peoples. See Category:Diasporas]
Each case must be decided on its own merits. In some cases, such as the Irish, use of the term is valid and not uncommon. In others, such as Swedes (with possible exceptions) and Norwegians, it's an inappropriate term and therefore not adequately supported by the souce to what Wikipedia does in the case of other nations is therefore irrelevant as well as self-referential. I'm afraid an important distinction is being blurred in the name of this article, and that remains so no matter how much one might wish history were simpler so that all articles on migration could have similar names. --Yngvadottir (talk) 07:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing administrator: The debate has been split over two articles, please also see:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norwegian diaspora for the bulk of the debate. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a multiple nomination. These are separate nominations. Each article needs to stand on its own merits. What kind of game are you trying to play here?Griswaldo (talk) 12:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion rationale and most of the arguments presented are the same. Dream Focus 12:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not the point. They are separate AfDs of separate entries and someone's argument for one cannot be transposed to another. For instance, User:Mandsford has argued to delete this entry, but while arguing to "weak keep" the Norway entry. If a closing admin takes arguments for deleting or keeping a completely seperate entry into account when making this close, the close will go straight to DRV, regardless of it's outcome. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume he voted that way because this article was but a single sentence when he voted, as he points out. The Norway article is more fleshed out. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, good luck with that. This is a Wikipedia naming convention for which you are trying to split off two articles and have them deleted. Two articles, same issue of Wikipedia naming conventions for the English Wikipedia. As I said start and RFC if you don't like the naming convention for the categories and main articles for the category. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I agree with that as well. To my knowledge, there's no policy that all so-called diasporas are inherently notable, nor that they're all forbidden. I think that if someone tried to do "North Korean diaspora" it would get shut down quickly; on the other hand, Irish diaspora is pretty secure. If there's any overall consensus at all, it may be that using the same term over and over for the sake of consistency isn't a good idea. I've made it clear that I think it's consistently silly. Mandsford 13:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. We have some rather fundamental policies here that guide the way. What do the sources say? When sources do not refer to expatriate communities of a certain kind as diasporic neither should we. It's very simple.Griswaldo (talk) 14:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AfD WP:NOTCLEANUP. An article about Swedish communities outside Sweden is without a doubt encyclopedic. The proper forum for concerns about its title and scope is Wikipedia:Requested moves. walk victor falk talk 20:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Our friend R.A.N. has repeatedly cautioned us that we are not voting on the content but on the toopic as described in the title. The article now contains material about Swedish communities outside of Sweden, but the topic is "Swedish diaspora" - we are voting about the notability of that exact topic. Since it cannot be shown to be notable by coverage in reliable sources the article has to be deleted or we will in effect endorse the notability of a topic about which there are no sources. This is the double bind situation in which we have been put.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE per nom and per Mandsford reasonings. If kept at all it should be restructured and renamed, focusing on Swedish immigration, as this is not the classical definition of a "diaspora" and so far this article and its current subject is inherently WP:SYNTH. Heiro 02:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns about name changes are made on the talk page, not at AFD. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite common to vote delete or rename or keep and rename in AfD's. IN this case it is especially useful, because it allows the closer to see if there is consensus for letting the article live with under a different topical title.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating for deletion, or voting for deletion, because you think the article should not have the current title is called disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? Since when? Point to a policy or guideline that says so. Its a fairly common practice at AFDs. Heiro 20:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final summary from my view Diaspora is defined by Merriam-Webster as "the movement, migration, or scattering of a people away from an established or ancestral homeland". Maunus found a definition in a book on diasporas that includes "a desire to return to the homeland" as a restriction in usage. "Swedish diaspora" is a relatively new phrase, but not one banned by Wikipedia rules as a neologism, since it goes back to at least 1900 according to Google Books. The word "Swedish diaspora" is used as a synonym for "Swedish migration" by Wikipedians through consensus to cover all topics on migration in 245 categories at Category:Diasporas. There is nothing exceptional about Norwegians and about Swedes that exempt them from either the narrow scholarly use of the term, or the broader Wikipedia use of the term. Nominating this and Norwegian diaspora because of the title is Wikipedia:Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Any arguments about the title could have been made on the talk page or at a Wikipedia:Request for comment. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final summary from my view. In order to merit an article a topic, as described by the article title, must either be notable as evidenced by substantial coverage in reliable sources OR it must be permissible as a generally descriptive title of a phenomena that is of unquestionable notability. The keep voters have failed to show that the concept of "Swedish diaspora" has been the subject of more than passing mention in sources about various other topics, and they have also proved unable to support the argument that "diaspora" is simply a short hand for the general concept of emigration from Sweden.
  • The concept "diaspora" is has a complex history of usage, but at its core is clearly the notion that a people can continue to be a people even though it is dislocated in time and space from a place of origin. This is even implicit in the merriam-webster definition when it talks of "a people that is scattered". The question then becomes when a emigrant group continues to be part of the same people as where they originated and when they become a new people. This is the key point and it is crucial. R.A.N. would have us accept the notion that every and any group that has migrated from X place of origin can be referred to as "x diaspora" whether or not they continue to think of themselves as part of the same people as their ancestors in the place of origin. To this, I and others have argued that definitions, especially those in expert tertiary sources such as the Encyclopedia of Diaspora's and Diaspora theorists like William Saffran but also Merriam-Websters definition, clearly require continued identification with the original people to qualify for being called a diaspora. Now then, how do we find out whether an emigrant group consider them selves sufficiently part of an ancestral people to be labelled a diaspora? The policies of wikipedia allow only one way of doing this: by showing that the majority of reliable sources consider the migrant group to be a diaspora of another group. If we were to judge this ourselves based on our knowledge of the groups in question would be OR. If we were to use descriptions of the sentiments of x migrant group and based on these sources arrive at a conclusionof whether they have enough x-sentiment to be called a diaspora is SYNTH.
  • Only by shjowing that a majority of reliable sources consider x migrant group a diaspora can we remain in line with wikipedias WP:NOR, WP:RS and WP:V policies. The sources that R.A.N. have produced are very few in number and it is very dubious that they can be said to represent a majority of scholarship. Secondly they only use the word "diaspora" in passing and thus do not pass muster of the requirement of WP:NEO that "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term.."

In conclusion: the topic "Swedish Diaspora" neither has notable presence in reliable sources, nor can it be defended as a simple shorthand for "Swedish emigration". Whether the article is deleted or renamed is irrelevant as this AfD has had the purpose of establishing that the topic "Swedish diaspora" is not sufficiently notable to merit an article in this encyclopedia. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


RFC[edit]

There is a combined RFC for Swedish diaspora and Norwegian diaspora and Diaspora.

RFC:Use of the word diaspora in Wikipedia
This is completely disruptive. What's wrong with waiting to see how these AfDs pan out before starting an RFC like this? Not unlike how you (Richard Arthur Norton) filed a DRV on the first deletion of Norwegian Diaspora, and then proceeded to recreate the page well before the DRV ended. Are you trying to disrupt the encyclopedia or are you just plain impatient?Griswaldo (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can request an RFC at any time. I think you are confusing an RFC with a "deletion review". A DRV can only be filed after an AFD and a deletion taking place. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct. It's a request for comments, and has no effect on the outcome of this particular argument. There's no disruption. Isn't one of the points of the nomination that "Swedish diaspora" is a phrase that hasn't proven to be notable? Let's assume, for a moment, that the debate is closed as "no consensus". Under that circumstance, wouldn't it be preferable for the article to have a more sensible title? Comments will be received; I doubt they'll change anything. Pointless? Perhaps. Disruptive? No. Mandsford 02:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right, perhaps it does serve a purpose in the case that the afd is closed as no consensus or keep. It is just that Mr. Norton has made it very difficult to assume that his actions are made in good faith. But I'll be willing to try in this case.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I consider it disruptive is that he's preventing people from having a centralized discussion, not to mention that in the secondary discussion he has misrepresented the views of those opposed to him. The second point should not be overlooked either, since he created the RFC and then promptly linked to it at both AfDs. Why do people not have any patience anymore? It would have been nice if he had let the discussion here end before moving onto next steps. It would have been even nicer if he had tried to account for the actual arguments of those he opposes instead of mutilating those arguments and using them to erect straw men. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 04:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did it for just the opposite reason. The arguments are being triplicated at Swedish diaspora and Norwegian diaspora and Diaspora. We needed one place to make the arguments, I should have done it earlier since at this point everyone has already said all they have to say at all three places. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Absurd, upside down, opposite-day arguments against the RFC. 'People who make RFCs should have more patience' (no one usually bothers waiting for people to show up to RFCs; consequently AFDs that should have been RFCs are continually nominated). 'AfDs should be allowed to run their course to not interrupt the discussion about the articles' (RFCs are the proper place for discuss the content of articles; AfDs should only be discussions about titles that are (currently) impossible to make good articles out of). 'Letting people at AfD know about the RFCs is preventing people having a centralized discussion' (self explanatory: the RFC is all in one place, letting everyone know means everyone can join it all in one place). The argument claiming 'racism' below is also ludicrous, but since everyone will hopefully ignore it and not let it affect their judgement of the other arguments on both sides, I won't bother addressing it. Grr. Trying not to read it. CgB is an SPA, btw, if credibility were not already completely gone. Anarchangel (talk) 08:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The words and actions of both Maunus and Griswaldo make their joint racist agenda clear. They are saying that if you are white, then you shouldn't be able to call yourself a "diaspora." It is almost like they are advocating for little brown people at the expense of the white race. Scandanavians are people too. Why all the fuss? Chacha gurl B (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)— Chacha gurl B (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There's not much that causes more "fuss" than for one person to accuse another of racism. That's about as clear a violation of WP:CIVIL as I've seen in awhile. Mandsford 01:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It pretty much needs a rename. There just is not enough scholarly use of the title as it currently exists. And it is going to be pretty hard to come up with a name that isn't 10 words long. But the subject is almost empirically observable to be notable, and not just part of the emigration to the USA, either, but from as far back as the Viking expansion and the Swedish Empire. And also, the current title would make a good redirect, so killing it to remake the article later under a new name does not make sense either. Anarchangel (talk) 08:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Sweden is notable; diaspora is notable, any attempt to mix them is WP:SYNTH through and through. I sincerely hope that this does not become a similar débacle to the bilateral relations marsh. Stifle (talk) 10:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename My earlier !vote was "keep unless someone actually rescues it"; certainly, it's been rescued. I don't have any worries that this will be a problem the way that bilateral relations had been; in fact, it's preferable to a bunch of bilateral articles entitled "Swedish persons in ______land". I think that the bigger problem is the insistence on the use of the word "diaspora", which is offensive to many of us on two levels-- one, for those who are familiar with "The Diaspora", as a generic term for emigration, somewhat like using "holocaust" as a synonym for persecution; two, as an insult to the readers' intelligence, simply because some misguided soul fell in love with the word years ago. I imagine that the closing admin will punt the ball away on the second problem, referring it to a talk page. Mandsford 20:07, 3 March 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Swedish_diaspora&oldid=1166302803"