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 speedy keep. and relist. I'm not uninvolved in this debate, but I believe this consensus is so clear there's no point in stretching it out. Mgm|^(talk) 22:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Afghan Australian[edit]

Another slew of "People from country X living in country Y" articles. These articles consist of nothing but census information poured into a standard mould. They do not assert any sort of notability, they are in violation of Wikipedia not being a directory or an indiscriminate collection of information and consensus is overwhelmingly to delete this kind of article. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Georgian_British and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/British_Dominicans.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 04:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, if it were like this, we would have thousands of pointless, census data, that would be extremely difficult to verify. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOTDIR as unencyclopedic cross-categorizations. Any Xian-Yian article should pass the general notability guidelines, these do not.--Boffob (talk) 04:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These articles add nothing of value, and everything of value is already found in the census date for the specific country. Oh, and in that enormous list, Yamama forgot to list my specific heritage and citizenship! (And Reyk, you missed Welsh Australian, no?) Drmies (talk) 05:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and relist separately. Some of the articles such as Afghan Australian, Iraqi Australian, Japanese Australian, Kosovar Australian and Sudanese Australian are supported by reliable sources and go way beyond a dicdef to include the significance of the subject. However some such as Laotian Australian and Swiss Australian are little more than a dicdef. The nomination rationale does not apply equally to all articles, i.e. not all articles "consist of nothing but census information poured into a standard mould". This is simply incorrect. McWomble (talk) 05:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nomination, ugh. JBsupreme (talk) 06:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and relist per User:McWomble, some of these articles are actually articles with potential (such as Afghan Australian), and others are dicdefs that are unlikely to ever be extended further (like Swiss Australian). Picking out the obvious deletes from the possibly contentious ones would probably be a better way to approach this. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy close and relist per discussion. Groups like Afghan Australian, Japanese Australian and Malaysian Australian have had a significant presence and contribution to Australia over many decades, even centuries. WWGB (talk) 06:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist as above, I cannot support the deletion of all these pages. Recurring dreams (talk) 06:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh- this is the trouble with nominating a great many similar articles. If you mass-nom then the presence of even one article that differs slightly from the mould is enough to get it chucked out on procedural grounds. If you list them separately people ask why you didn't mass-nom and you don't get any decent discussion. Here's an idea: how about I strikethrough the ones people have objected to and relist them, and leave the massnom for the others open. Reyk _YO! 07:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It does not take more than a cursory reading to see that the rationale for nomination ("consist of nothing but census information" and "do not assert any sort of notability") was simply untrue for many of the articles. The differences are more than "slight" and far from indiscriminate. Assyrians/Syriacs in Australia, Egyptian Australian, Iranian Australian, Korean Australian and Portuguese Australian do not fit the nomination rationale either. McWomble (talk) 07:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Im'm placing a hold on tag on the Latino Australian Article, it does have reliable sources. (Yamama3000) 7:29, 29 November (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. —Cordless Larry (talk) 09:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If I were you'd I'd split the nomination into smaller groups of articles that are in similar states. I can see a few that are fairly obvious candidates for deletion and then some borderline cases. These should be kept apart because there are different rationales involved. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close nom and relist. Not all articles in this nom are in the same state, so it's not right to apply the same reasoning to all of them. Please split in smaller groups. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close and relist In all fairness to the nominator, I would point out that listing the objectionable articles in one group would spare all of us having to defend each one in a separate edit. In fairness to all of us, however, maybe the nomination could list the reasons why each individual article should be deleted, such as "Argentine Australian" has nothing but census data; "Ethiopian Australian" is completely unsourced; etc. However, the nomination was incorrect in describing all of these as "nothing but census information poured into a standard mould". I will agree that there are a lot of such "x intersects with y" type articles that aren't much more than census information, like Argentine Australian. On the other hand, there are other articles like Albanian Australian that examine the reasons for such immigration and details of where settlements have been established. These have to be judged on their own merits. Mandsford (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and block proposing editor for disruption of our project through constant listing of ethnic group articles rather than improving (or, at least) merging data in articles about small ethnic groups. Badagnani (talk) 17:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and relist per McWomble. From past experience, mass nominations of ethnicity articles such as these tend to fail, while selective nominations have been successful because they are judged on the individual merits (or lack thereof) of the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:02, 29 November 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.