Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney ethnic enclaves

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 delete. While not unanimous, the consensus here is that this article cannot be supported by the available sources without the use of original research. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney ethnic enclaves[edit]

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

the term "enclaves" is a very POV term with negative connotations, I do note it is used commonly in the USA but not as much elsewhere. but also it is unclear what qualifies a suburb as listed in the article as an "ethnic enclave", is it 30% of the population that is born in a particular country? it is very POV how suburbs are included in this list without clear criteria. LibStar (talk) 23:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've never heard the word enclave used negatively, and this article doesn't use it negatively. You can simply find another word to use instead if that's a problem. I added a link to the official census page of Sydney which shows the various ethnic groups do exist and in what numbers. [1] They all have their own Wikipedia articles also. There is also Chinatown, Sydney which talks about the Chinese enclave in Sydney. The "Birthplace of parents" section on the census site shows most of the people living in Sydney had parents born in other nations. Under "Language (other than English)" Arabic, Mandarin, Cantonese, Vietnamese, Greek appeared in sufficient number. A significant number of people are born in other nations according to the "Country of birth" section, and as I have said, most of those born in the country still had parents who were born elsewhere. Dream Focus 00:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 00:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In Australia, it is used negatively, a Government Minister used it in a negative context here [2]. Also what is the criterion to be classed as "enclave" what is " A significant number of people are born in other nations"? LibStar (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how its used negatively in that article. The dictionary the word clearly [3] as distinct territorial, cultural, or social unit enclosed within or as if within foreign territory <ethnic enclaves>. Dream Focus 00:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merriam Webster is a US dictionary and not really used in Australia. LibStar (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then find a popular dictionary in Australia. I'm sure the word means the same there too. Just look at how its used in news articles in that nation. And do you have any proof that anyone considers it negative in any possible way, or is that just your original research/wild imagination? Dream Focus 01:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Australia's premier dictionary Macquarie Dictionary defines enclave as "a country, or especially, an outlying portion of a country, entirely or mostly surrounded by the territory of another country". sounds like Kosovo or Tibet to me. LibStar (talk) 05:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just registered a free trial to see that. " 2. a small district or area enclosed within a larger one, as a suburb within a city, especially one characterised by a racial or political identity." You only quoted the first definition and ignored the second which defines exactly what we're talking about. Dream Focus 09:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
regardless you have failed to provide a definitive criterion for list inclusion. what is it? 20% born in that country, 40% that speak that speak that language? LibStar (talk) 01:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the name clear enough. Ethnic enclaves in the city of Sydney Australia. Dream Focus 01:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

how does a suburb get onto the list? what criteria is being used? LibStar (talk) 01:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The sole reference is very general, the necessary data is located in deep individual reports. There are also elements of WP:OR in the article. (What is the criteria for inclusion? What does "sizeable" mean?) Also a number of WP:POVish comments (eg "gentrification and rising house prices are forcing many Italians out of the area"). Who says? Generally a poorly written article that cannot likely be saved. WWGB (talk) 00:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment article says "There is a sizeable Maltese Australian population in Greystanes". yet only 3.6% of those in Greystanes are born in Malta. so is 3.6% the threshold to be an ethnic enclave? complete POV to me. LibStar (talk) 01:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2.6% of people born in Ingleburn, New South Wales come from Bangladesh and somehow it gets labelled an enclave where more residents in the suburb are born in India or the Phillipines. this is complete POV to label it a Bangladeshi ethnic enclave with no agreed defensible criteria. LibStar (talk) 01:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just state what percentage there is, and what the exact number is, according to the most recent census data. Far more encyclopedic than using vague words like "sizeable". Dream Focus 01:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
you still haven't stated the critera to be listed on this list. LibStar (talk) 02:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kogarah is a listed as an ethnic enclave for Macedonians yet the article says top "countries of birth being China 12.0%, Nepal 6.5% and Bangladesh 4.4%." again complete POV. LibStar (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to bother to look up information, why not use it to correct any mistakes you find in the article and reference it, as I have been doing? Dream Focus 02:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you still haven't stated the critera to be listed on this list. no point correcting when there is no clear criteria for list inclusion. LibStar (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Further comment references can establish a certain % ethnic population in a particular suburb, but there are hardly any references describing suburbs as "enclaves". it is therefore complete POV to use such a label. nor could this article be renamed "list of suburbs with significant ethnic populations" because significant is undefined too. LibStar (talk) 06:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article seems to have been created around stereotypes of Sydney's population, and a misunderstanding what the term "enclave" actually means, and has no useful encyclopedic value. While some parts of Sydney have higher-than-average proportions of groups from particular backgrounds (as would be expected for any large city with a large migrant population), the proportion generally isn't terribly high. Importantly, people from these groups routinely move in and out of other parts of the city and interact with people from other backgrounds. As such, it isn't accurate to describe the certain suburbs as being "enclaves" of one group or another. This can be easily tested through the Australian Burueau of Statistics census data - for example, people from China make up only 30% of the supposed Chinese "enclave" of Eastwood [4], the "large community" of Sudanese people in Blacktown is actually so small that the ABS doesn't report it in the Census summary for the suburb [5] only 11% of people in the claimed South African "enclave" of St Ives are from South Africa: [6] and only 15% of people in the Jewish "enclave" of Bondi report Judaism as their religion [7] (where they're heavily outnumbered by people with no religion). This seems to actually be a 'List of ethnic and religious stereotypes associated with Sydney suburbs', and should be deleted. Nick-D (talk) 09:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many articles exist about this subject. Category:Ethnic enclaves Many have the term ethnic enclave in their name. Australian newspapers talk about the "ethnic enclaves" regularly. [8] So the name isn't offensive. It is clearly defined as mentioned previously. Dream Focus 10:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been adding references to Australian news sources that mention the ethnic enclaves, calling them that, and listing which neighborhoods have what percentage of which group in them. Articles like this [9] help prove reliable sources do cover this information. Dream Focus 10:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which will get us to something like "List of Sydney suburbs Bernard Salt has described as being ethnic enclaves", which doesn't strike me as being very useful I'm afraid (the Census was in 2011, not 2012 BTW). There isn't much support for such a concept in the academic literature, where a quick Google scholar search returns not all that many useful results, with many of these appearing to argue that Sydney doesn't have ethnic enclaves: [10] A few academic articles do seem to apply the "enclave" terminology, but many seem to argue that it's invalid. Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did anyone actually read the very first paragraph of that article:

What proportion of the population by country of birth dominates which suburbs? Where are the most intense immigrant concentrations? And are these concentrations sufficiently distinctive to qualify as ethnic enclaves?

The author questions the legitimacy of the term "enclave" to describe groups that our article then unequivocally describes as "ethnic enclaves". He's asked the question (about his own research) and we've answered it for him with an unwavering yes! How is that not original research? Stalwart111 12:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And source 1:

Those who oppose immigration and multiculturalism deride these suburbs as ethnic enclaves and ‘no go’ areas.

[Underlining mine]. Yes, a term of derision. And...

The most interesting product developed from these suburbs is the move from ethnic enclaves [negative] to cultural precincts [positive].

[Brackets mine]. Says it all really. Stalwart111 13:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - in Australia, "enclave" is the word you use when you want to describe a small group of migrants living in one particular area who sell products popular with their own culture, put up signs in their own language and generally "refuse" (so it is claimed) to integrate with people not from their own culture in the suburbs around them. I'd almost suggest in some cases the word has been used as synonymous with "ghetto". Such descriptions almost always have racial undertones and in Australia are often accompanied by racist epithets like "Vietnamatta" (a racist portmanteau of Vietnamese - the people - and Cabramatta - the suburb). Enclave is probably used by older white Australians (like Bernard Salt) in its original context, though they did so in the context of the White Australia policy. See, particularly, it's use here in the Sydney Morning Herald to describe Hong Kong and here to describe rich South African immigrants on Sydney's North Shore, here to describe an Aboriginal community with it's own language and here to poke fun at inner city hipsters. Down here, it's not a nice word. We shouldn't be using it in the context of an article title, regardless of how many old white men use the term in reliable sources.
Beyond that, the definitions are hopelessly POV, many of the claims are completely unsourced, many "obvious" communities have been left off the list and much of the "information" is clearly based on someone's recollection of the "good old days" when certain groups congregated in certain areas (but they have long since moved elsewhere making parts of the list about 50 years out of date). Stalwart111 12:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and extracting raw data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) and their Census (currently 3 of the 6 sources) and then extrapolating/interpreting our own conclusions about what that raw data means in terms of ethnic diversity is pure, unadulterated original research. Stalwart111 13:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
excellent reasoning Stalwart, you've hit the nail on the head on why this is POV and OR. LibStar (talk) 02:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've set up a related discussion on the category here Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 August 15. LibStar (talk) 03:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Stalwart111's comments: in the Australian context, claims that certain groups live in an 'enclave' are generally used to attack that group though an assertion that they're not mixing with the general population and are "taking over" various regions (and generally, by extension, that letting them into the country was a mistake). This isn't actually true for any ethnic group in Australia. Nick-D (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article title is "... enclaves", the main section is "List of enclaves" - and we all appear to agree that an enclave is an area - but what follows is a list of ethnicities, not a list of areas (eg suburbs). If the article is to be kept, we need to change the main section name to "Ethnic groups" or similar, because that's what they are listed by. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Dream Focus 17:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Stalwart111. POV, OR, unreliably sourced, divisive and unencyclopedic. Why we persist in allowing opinion pieces like this masquerading as articles to exist is beyond me. It does us no credit. Begoon talk 06:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ridicolous debates on the word "enclave" being offensive (if it really is, which we have no evidence of, it's just a matter of renaming the page -therefore it doesn't require deletion), the topic of ethnically-enriched neighbourhoods in the city is notable, per sources found by User:Dream Focus etc. No OR is needed if we stick to the sources -remember that OR and POV are about content, not about topic, and as such can be solved by editing: therefore our deletion policy requires us to keep, if that's all the concerns we have.-- cyclopiaspeak! 15:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • regardless of the "offensiveness" of the term, what is the criteria for getting suburbs on the list? what minimum % makes it a enclave? there is no clear criteria, simply saying "reliable sources" is not good enough, the sources like the Bernard Salt article is simply an opinion piece. it is not like a list of heritage listed buildings where it is clear cut it is in or not. LibStar (talk) 23:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • RS are good enough. We're not here to make original research. -- cyclopiaspeak! 09:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we've well and truly established that, in Australia, the term is offensive. Even the sources highlighted by those seeking to keep the article refer to it as a term of "derision". If you have an alternate term that accurately explains these areas (which we don't really have in Australia) then by all means, feel free to suggest an alternate title. If you think we can accurately refine the term "ethnically-enriched neighbourhood" in an Australian context, with reliable sources, go for it. The reality is that the premise of the article is original research - "ethnic enclaves" have x features - these locations in Sydney have x features - therefore these locations in Sydney are "ethnic enclaves" without reliable sources saying as much. Stalwart111 00:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the premise is OR. If the body of the article is OR, this can be solved by editing. -- cyclopiaspeak! 09:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Silly late-night bickering.
  • Any particular reason? What reliable sources establish this as a topic and then establish the listed suburbs as "ethnic enclaves"? The contention from most respondents is that ethnic enclaves don't exist in Sydney and that the term is used differently there. So how can we have an article about Sydney ethnic enclaves? That's like an article about New Mexico glaciers. Stalwart111 11:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • New Mexico glaciers? Well established offensiveness? This is becoming surreal. cyclopiaspeak! 12:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sources speak clearly and neutrally about the existence of Sydney ethnic enclaves. Examples:
  • In "Sociology in Today's World" there is a full chapter devoted to the concept of "ethnic enclave" in Australia/NZ, where you can find a definition of the term, which has no offensive/slur overtones at all: "An ethnic enclave is a spatial concentration of ethnic group members who establish businesses that serve and employ mainly members of the ethnic group and reinvest profits in community businesses and organization" and then discusses the Vietnamese enclave in Sydney and others in Australia.
More books:
And news sources follow: "Unlike the mixed population of Greenacre, Annandale is an ethnic enclave where residents are surrounded by those of their kind." (Sydney Morning Herald) ; "Arncliffe, 10km south of the city centre, a place settled mainly by Lebanese Muslims since the 1970s that was once feared to be an ethnic enclave of crime and unemployment." (The Australian). Do I need to add more sources? There are. Before replying, please take care of giving them a look. -- cyclopiaspeak! 12:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More sources that establish the term:
Silly late-night bickering.
  • I honestly don't know where to start. Did you actually read those sources before you listed them here? I don't know whether you're trying to quote them out of context or whether you legitimately don't understand the context. The first source describes "south-west Sydney" as an ethnic enclave - an area of about 1 million people. The second describes Sydney neighbourhoods with clusters of residents of different backgrounds and then says an ethnic enclave is very different to a neighbourhood with clusters of residents of different backgrounds. The third isn't in the context of Sydney at all - the author talks about the want of Sydney Jews to assimilate and then describes what can happen if they don't; forming enclaves. The fourth gives Dunn's view of Fairfield - 40% of Sydney's Vietnamese immigrants live there. But even with that 40%, Vietnamese immigrants only make up 8.5% of Fairfield's population. Not an enclave by any description we use here and the author then goes on to note that such media representations of Fairfield as an enclave are "contested" (Dunn himself) and that the suburb has also been considered "an exemplar of cultural diversity" ("and as a poor ghetto"). The fifth describes Sydney (with its population of 4 million or so) as an "ethnic enclave" - the argument being that people from other cultures will be comfortable in a multicultural city - not individual suburbs. Should I start on your press articles, one of which is clearly sarcastic and tongue-in-cheek? Talk about surreal. Stalwart111 13:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first source describes "south-west Sydney" as an ethnic enclave - an area of about 1 million people. - Thanks -so what? If you want to debate with the source, go ahead and publish your own rebuke in the academic literature. Besides, it doesn't describe the whole south-east of the city as an enclave, read more carefully. It says that they headed there.
The second describes Sydney neighbourhoods with clusters of residents of different backgrounds and then says an "ethnic enclave is very different to a neighbourhood with clusters of residents of different backgrounds". That's because it clarifies the precise meaning of the expression "ethnic enclave". Again, you are free to publish your own research on reliable sources if you disagree with it.
The third isn't in the context of Sydney at all - the author talks about the want of Sydney Jews to assimilate - So it's not about Sydney, but it talks of Sydney Jews. Nice self-contradiction.
The fourth gives Dunn's view of Fairfield - 40% of Sydney's Vietnamese immigrants live there. But even with that 40%, Vietnamese immigrants only make up 8.5% of Fairfield's population. Not an enclave by any description we use here : Here we use what sources say. If you disagree with Dunn, again, go publish your own book/academic peer-reviewed paper on the topic (or bring sources that show disagreeing academic consensus).
and the author then goes on to note that such media representations of Fairfield as an enclave are "contested" - Sure. Contested doesn't mean "completely discredited", as far as I've seen. We can also include the controversy in the article (e.g. "Fairfield has been called an enclave... but this is contested...).
The fifth describes Sydney (with its population of 4 million or so) as an "ethnic enclave" - What? Can you point me where?
And yes, I know one of the press pieces is a bit tongue in cheek, so? It is whimsical but it does not look nonsensical. Still, remove it, no problem: there are all the sociology books above. -- cyclopiaspeak! 14:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've gone from misinterpreting the sources to misquoting me (cutting my comments in half and then claiming what remains is a self-contradiction). I don't disagree with Dunn - Dunn disagrees with the idea of describing Fairfield as an enclave. It's not my "original research" at all. You claimed your sources substantiate the "existence of Sydney ethnic enclaves" and yet among all of your sources not a single one is substantiated except, maybe, "south-west Sydney" (all of it - the author didn't want to get too specific). What's your argument? That they "exist" because people have talked about the concept in a Sydney context but we can't identify any particular enclaves, nor can we nail down a criteria by which they might be identified? I'm more than happy to let others judge your "sources" for themselves. Stalwart111 14:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's beginning to be hard to assume good faith here. Talk about "misinterpreting the sources". For example, to think that the first source calls all of south-west Sydney as an enclave equals that, if I say that "I live in southern London", then I imply that all of Southern London is my home. It doesn't take great reading skills to see that the first source just implies that such an enclave is located in south-west Sydney, not that it's all of it. About Dunn: Yes, he debates the ethnic enclave definition. But still it recognizes that it is considered, elsewhere, as such. That someone disagrees with a specific place being called like that doesn't jeopardize the concept as a whole (just like saying "whales aren't fish" doesn't mean the concept of "fish" is senseless). Et cetera. Sources above substantiate very well that there is an academic literature that talks about the enclaves and that uses the term, and that's enough for our notability guidelines. The need of a further, arbitrary "criteria" to "nail down" is just yours -our criteria, on Wikipedia, is sources, not arbitrary whims. But yes, let's leave others judging the sources. -- cyclopiaspeak! 14:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good faith? You deliberately misquoted me. Your very first contribution to this debate was to call the discussion "ridiculous". Oh the WP:IRONY. It's not my criteria at all - the very first contributor here argued this was a list article and suggested it should be kept and renamed List of Sydney ethnic enclaves and you cited his argument in your first contribution. I don't think it stands up either as a stub (with no particular suburbs specified) or a list (with a bunch of unsourced claims about various suburbs). Stalwart111 15:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You deliberately misquoted me. - I didn't deliberately misquote anyone (and in fact you've shown no proof of this) and this is kind of insulting. Please remove this attack. Also, calling a discussion "ridicolous" doesn't mean it is in bad faith -quite the opposite. Also I didn't cite any argument at all in my first edit, I spoke about the sources found by Dream Focus - far from me misquoting you, this is you misrepresenting my arguments, instead, quite clearly. -- cyclopiaspeak! 15:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The author talks about the want of Sydney Jews to assimilate and then describes what can happen if they don't; forming enclaves" became "The author talks about the want of Sydney Jews to assimilate" without my description of the second section of that passage - which was clearly the point of my comment; that there was a second (separate) section to that passage - so you could describe it as a "nice self contradiction". And my point was that you had clearly read DF's commentary - because you referenced his sources - but missed the bit where he called for it to be turned into a list and then attributed that suggestion to me - "just yours". And you think calling the discussions of others "ridiculous" is a good-faith contribution ("quite the opposite" of bad-faith)? Wow. Stalwart111 15:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. It's quite hard to discuss with such a list of non-sequiturs. However:
  • clearly the point of my comment - That's because such a second part is irrelevant. You said that it wasn't about Sydney and then you said it's about Sydney. That "then describes what can happen if they don't form enclaves" is true but also irrelevant. Either it's about Sydney or it isn't. I can quote it in full if you prefer.
  • you had clearly read DF's commentary - Yes I did. That I've read and acknowledged the sourcing does not mean that I endorsed all of it.
  • then attributed that suggestion to me - Nope. You seem to have an habit of jumping at conclusions. I attributed to you only your own words -that is, when you asked for some kind of arbitrary criteria to nail down in addition to sources. That this stemmed from DF's suggestion or something else is entirely irrelevant.
  • And you think calling the discussions of others "ridiculous" is a good-faith contribution - Yes, of course. Perhaps you need to check what bad faith means:

Bad faith (Latin: mala fides) is double mindedness or double heartedness in duplicity, fraud, or deception.

Now, where is the duplicity,fraud, or deception in giving an opinion that a discussion sounds silly? While, conversely, there is a lot of (intentional or not, I don't know) deception going on in your playing down the relevance of the above sources. But given your bewildering comment on "bad faith" and the "source claims all of Sydney is an enclave" nonsenses, I begin to suspect it is about language/reading skills. -- cyclopiaspeak! 16:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're a riot! The duplicity is in coming to a civil, collegial discussion and seeking to join said discussion by first branding the prior contributions of colleagues as "ridiculous". And if at first you don't succeed, be the first to shout competence! (after misquoting me again and changing the meaning of my comment). Too funny. Stalwart111 23:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you're the first who shouted "competence!" above. But it's clear you have no interest in a good faith discussion, given that you continue to call copy-and-pastes of your comments "misquotes" and you spew nonsense about what is simply a frank comment about the discussion of "offensiveness" of a technical sociological term. I understand you are passionate about this issue, for some unfathomable reason: but this behaviour is very baffling and sad. -- cyclopiaspeak! 08:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still hope this is just a sincere, mutual misunderstanding. I left a message on your talk page, this discussion is not really useful here anymore.-- cyclopiaspeak! 08:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed and I have responded there. Stalwart111 10:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete / redirect as these are no enclaves, they're demographic groups. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:OR, and piss-poor 'research' at that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section break[edit]

  • Let's look at some of these sources from Cyclopia, almost all do not establish individual suburbs of Sydney as ethnic enclaves but generally refer to the concept of enclaves generally in Australia. An argument for keep here is that sources exist, but none of these sources "prove" individual suburbs as enclaves. this provides no base for including individual suburbs in this article under AfD. the whole point of Sydney ethnic enclaves article is to list individual suburbs.
  • this one mentions ethnic enclaves but the word Sydney is several paragraphs later, so it does not directly refer to the existence of ethnic enclaves in particular suburbs.
  • similarly this one and this and this do not refer to suburbs that may be enclaves.
  • this one does not argue Annandale is an ethnic enclave is actually says Not only do suburbs such as Annandale and Newtown have fewer migrants than the average Sydney suburb.
  • this one is someone's opinion in a book and again does not refer to specific suburbs in Sydney
  • this one specifically refers to Arncliffe, but it seems to refer to enclave as a term used in the past not present. LibStar (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
so my assessment here, is that one can find literature with the words enclaves and Sydney on the same page, but very little sources that attribute individual suburbs as "ethnic enclaves". LibStar (talk) 02:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We do not need to have a list of individual enclaves. We should not reason about the actual shape of the article, but about the topic. Everything else can be dealt with editing. The topic of Sydney ethnic enclaves is notable (even if perhaps would be better merged in Australian ethnic enclaves or something like that). The concept is sound and far from being "offensive" as someone argued above. That's all we need for keeping. Everything else is cleanup. -- cyclopiaspeak! 08:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. Someone not using his real name (talk) 11:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you're basically suggesting a major rewrite of the current article to fit your sources and a more generic topic of Sources that perhaps list Sydney and ethnic enclaves on the same page without reference to specific suburbs. LibStar (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A major rewrite would be a good idea. Given that AfD is not cleanup and that what can be solved by editing has to be solved by editing, per our deletion policy, that an article requires to be mostly rewritten is not a reason to delete it. Sources above show clearly that the concept meets WP:GNG and is covered in a lot of reliable, academic literature. AfD is about the suitability of the topic, not about the suitability of the current state of the article. --cyclopiaspeak! 08:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how converting the article from a list to something entirely different and massively broadening the topic to Australian ethnic enclaves are suggestions in favor of keeping this. Maybe everybody here would be in favor of keeping what you're proposing, but we can't really be sure because what you're proposing bears only a casual relationship with the article and topic under discussion here. WP:BLOWITUP, etc. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The earlier debate seems to ignore the fact that with some populations (Maltese Australians, Macedonian Australians, etc.), there will be lots of people who so identify but who were born in Australia. So just looking at the percentage born in a certain place will not tell you what percentage identifies as part of a given ethnic group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename To something like Location of ethnic groups in Sydney. The article is focused on where particular ethnic groups live, so it is about the placement of those groups, not the overall character of the locations. If a group is small enough 100% of its members could live in one location, and yet be only a small percentage of the population there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"If a group is small enough 100% of its members could live in one location" . that is definitely not true in Sydney, census data reveals that there is no one suburb where 100% of migrants of that ethnicity live in Sydney. if that were the case, yes "enclaves" would exist. but evidence is sorely lacking of existence of enclaves in individual suburbs. LibStar (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per LibStar's analysis of sourcing. Much less concerned about debate over whether or not the term is offensive, but there doesn't seem to be reliable sourcing to back up the article and topic currently under discussion. Suggested alternative topics such as Australian ethnic enclaves don't seem to me to have a meaningful editorial relationship with this topic. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are about 45 different things wrong with this article. The title is neither common usage nor inoffensive. The sourcing is weak. Some of the enclaves themselves are not notable, and the rest can just have their own articles without this list existing pbp 00:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. Ethnic composition is a valid subject; there is nothing inherently POV here. Yes, it can be sourced better, just as any other wikipedia page. My very best wishes (talk) 04:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
please define the unambiguous criteria for listing a suburb in this article, no keep !voter has done this yet. LibStar (talk) 04:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I too am interested in knowing the threshold percentage of the population that entitles an ethnicity to be considered an "enclave". At the very least, it would have to be the dominant ethnicity in that region. For example, in Haymarket, New South Wales, Chinese is the dominant ethnicity. Where else, if anywhere, is this true? WWGB (talk) 04:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
please define the unambiguous criteria for listing a suburb in this article, no keep !voter has done this yet. - Don't be disingenuous, I clearly stated it above. The one and only criteria is reliable sources defining it as an ethnic enclave. We need no more, no less. And nothing prohibits us to make it an article about the enclaves in general, instead than a list-like article. --cyclopiaspeak! 08:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to something with clear meaning like "Ethnic concentrations in Sydney" and turn it into prose. "Enclave" is far too vague a term to be able to create a categorical list of them, at least in a situation like this where there are no walls or political boundaries. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
and what is the criteria to list suburbs by ethnic concentrations? 5%? 15% ? LibStar (talk) 07:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article, of coure, does not (and does not attempt to) list suburbs by ethnic concentrations. Rather it provides factually verifiable information of the form: [As of year X], people of ethnicity Y in Sydney tended to concentrate in [parts] of area/suburb Z. Sociologists may standardly refer to such concentrations as "ethnic enclaves". - 122.56.121.138 (talk) 07:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with the reasoning of Stalwart111 and AndyTheGrump. Poorly researched article that is basically WP:OR and offensive by its choice of terminology. Demographics of Sydney#Ethnic groups already has some better-sourced info and plenty of room to add more, making this AfD'd page a mostly unsourced WP:POVFORK. Also note two academic WP:RS disputing that the term "enclave" is appropriate for Sydney's situation [12][13]. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a former taxi driver in a metropolitan area, I am familiar with the sort of urban micro-geography involved here. As sourcing may be difficult, a well-referenced article may be difficult, and worse than that, subject to rapid change in the situation on the ground, which combined with lack of good references may present problems. However, despite this article being close to the natural limits of Wikipedia, it is of value to our readers. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"As a former taxi driver in a metropolitan area" is WP:IKNOWIT and original research. LibStar (talk) 01:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The concentration of ethnic groups in particular neighbourhoods is common and well-documented. The word enclave seems fine and we have category:ethnic enclaves which demonstrates its use elsewhere. If we wanted to change it, this would be done by a move, not deletion. Warden (talk) 12:03, 23 August 2013 (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/Sydney_ethnic_enclaves&oldid=1140229212"