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. Merging can be discussed on the talk page. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allochtoon[edit]

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

As far as i'm aware wikipedia is not a Dutch-to-English translation website. If this word is allowed then we will have to add a million other entries from various languages. Pass a Method talk 10:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dutch nationality law, since this seems to be the underlying topic of the article. Yunshui (talk) 13:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be incorrect; many (most?) allochtonen are Dutch nationals and their status has little to do with nationality law. Ucucha (talk) 16:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - If this was to be merged then I think a better target would be Demographics of the Netherlands. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable, as evidenced by significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources:[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. --Lambiam 11:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding nominator's argument that we will have to add a million other entries from various languages if this word is allowed: we don't need articles on, for example, Juust or Sajt, because the concept is adequately covered by our Cheese. However, a few notable topics are so outlandish they only have a foreign name, used in English-language publications for lack of an adequate English equivalent. Therefore our articles on them have foreign-language titles: Adat, Barretina, Chouquette, ... As it is, there is no adequate English equivalent of 'allochtoon', a topic that is (at least in the Low Countries) not only (literally) outlandish, but also hot. And that is why English-language publications use the Dutch term (e.g., here, here and here). --Lambiam 11:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My feeling is that a merge would be an appropriate way to handle this, but I can't find a clear place to merge it into. That might actually suggest a (weak) reason to keep it, in that the information is not covered elsewhere. In any case, I don't think it should be deleted. The article has as much to do with demographic history and with legal niceties as with the word as a word. Cnilep (talk) 02:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I dont mind merging it with this; Immigration and Naturalisation Service (Netherlands) Pass a Method talk 11:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  That is just as inappropriate and incorrect a target as Dutch nationality law. The vast majority of people labelled as allochtoon are naturally-born Dutch or Belgian citizens, and have never been in contact with, or the subject of any action or other form of attention of, the Dutch or Belgian Immigration and Naturalisation Services. --Lambiam 12:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - firstly, the nominator's rationale is spurious, as this is clearly not simply a translation of a Dutch word. It's an explanation of a legal and social concept in the Netherlands, which arguably belongs in Wikipedia, although it could be better sourced. I would be open to a merge somewhere; the best target would probably be Demographics of the Netherlands#Migration and ethnicity. But I don't think it has to be done, and this article, though it could use some improvement, does cover a legitimate topic in its own right. Robofish (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would also note the existence of List of terms for ethnic exogroups, which shows we have plenty of other articles covering similar concepts to this one. Robofish (talk) 16:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As the only argument put forth for deletion is the original nomination, and even the nominator is potentially amenable to merging, this AfD could probably be closed. To merge or not is a separate discussion for the article's talk page. Cnilep (talk) 08:30, 5 October 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.