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 (non-admin closure) The consensus here appears to be to either keep, or in some cases, to redirect the article to another. But redirection is not something, in this instance, that would require any administrative action to do, and redirecting the article, if appropriate, is something that can be discussed on the article talk page. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 11:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Belgians[edit]

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

Belgian people redirects to Belgium since 2007. This article's full of dubious uncited statements, so it's violating WP:OR. I'm sorry but "Belgians" as an ethnic group doesn't exist. This article will never reach the quality of Americans as a "nationality", because most Americans identify themselves as Americans while Belgians generally indentify themselves as belonging either to Wallonia or Flanders. Belgium is inhabited by two major ethnic groups: Fleming and Walloons. Of course there are people with Belgian citizenship and there are people living in Belgium, but that's already mentioned in the article named Demographics of Belgium. This article can actually increase confusion because a lot of people outside Belgium are unaware of the country's ethnic split and also because there once was (thousands of years ago) a Celtic tribe called Belgae which could be translated into Belgians . Secondly this article doesn't even include clear and significant examples of the shared common ethnicity.

I think the page should either redirect to Belgium or made into a disambig page linking to Belgae, Demographics of Belgium and culture of Belgium. Deraderum (talk) 16:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)— Deraderum (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Merge to multiple sources and Redirect to Communities, regions and language areas of Belgium I agree with Deraderum's sentiments above. Some of the cited information here is worth keeping. I'm not quite sure where this information ought to go, though. I like the idea of merging the religion information into Demographics of Belgium, but the info on meaning of national identity and communities should be merged into Communities, regions and language areas of Belgium. Overall, I think the redirect for "Belgians" should be to Communities, regions and language areas of Belgium, as the term refers to the national subgroups represented within the country. --I Jethrobot (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The claim that there are no such people is absurd - like claiming that there are no British or Swiss. The title of the article seems to be a WP:COMMONNAME used in sources such as The Belgians, History of the Belgians, Belgians in the United States, &c. For an example of a encyclopedic entry elsewhere, please see Encyclopedia of European peoples which has a substantial entry entitled Belgians: nationality. Warden (talk) 06:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warden. I didn't say Belgians did not exist. You misinterpreted my words! I said Belgians, as an ethnic group, don't exist. You can read about Belgian nationality in the Belgian nationality law article. Belgian people generally identify themselves as either coming from Flanders or Wallonia. And why theres no People of the Vatican? Be WP:BOLD if you think they deserve an article. Deraderum (talk) 07:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A comparison to the British and Swiss is unhelpful. Both have far longer national histories than Belgium, the British (to a considerable extent) share a common language, and the Swiss had a long history of common external threats (most commonly the Hapsburgs) to form a common bond. Belgium on the other hand has a fairly recent history (from 1830, prior to which the region had a very checkered/piecemeal past) and neither language nor culture (but only Catholicism) in common. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For a younger country, see Italians. We even have Wikipedians. Warden (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Warden. In addition, nom (though I can understand him not knowing this, if this nomination is indeed his 3rd wp edit, ever) may be interested in knowing that AfD is not for clean-up. If he has clean-up concerns, he can more properly raise those on the article talkpage.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't give a very sound argument to keep the article, as writing "per x" doesn't really help the dicussion. See WP:PERNOM. You didn't explain how this article is improvable, for instance. Deraderum (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's an essay -- the views of one or more editors. My view: that editor's essay makes little sense. "Per x" means "for the reasons stated by x". No need to clutter an AfD by recasting the precise same language in other terms. BTW -- for an editor with 3 edits to his name, you seem to be citing rules like an old-timer -- can you share w/us any names you have edited other in the past (or are still editing under)? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't, sorry :) Deraderum (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just like we have informative and well-sourced articles on French people and Swiss people – also generally not considered ethnic groups, but groups defined by citizenship – we should have an informative and well-sourced article on Belgian people. --Lambiam 08:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Notability is not inherited, see WP:INHERIT and WP:OTHERSTUFF for a better understanding why your argument should be avoided in deletion discussions. Deraderum (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was debunking your argument that goes like: "Belgians" as an ethnic group doesn't exist; ergo they should not have an article. The counterexamples of French people and Swiss people show that this particular argument doesn't hold water; you'll have to come up with something else. Are you arguing that the Belgians are so thoroughly unnotable that no informative reliable sources about them exist? --Lambiam 20:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do believe that Belgians exists, and that they, like other national groups, are notable enough to have an article about them. Dream Focus 10:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, you just used Two arguments to avoid in the same sentence: WP:ITEXISTS and WP:INHERIT. Deraderum (talk) 12:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some questioned if they existed so I said they do. The Wikipedia policy of WP:VERIFIABILITY demands we prove it exists. And my arguments was they were notable. Mentioning that other such groups are also notable, in the same sentence, has nothing to do with the inherited bit. That essay is just a suggestion, not a guideline or policy, and you are taking examples out of context. Dream Focus 14:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Out of context" ? You contradict yourself, you said that notability is inherited because it is a national group "just like every other". And, an "example" of WP:INHERIT as cited by Wikipedia is "Keep All examples of foo are inherently notable." Deraderum (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redirect or turn into a disambiguation page pointing to Walloonians, Flemings, etc. It is WP:Complete bollocks to claim them to be "shar[ing] a common Belgian culture" when Culture of Belgium clearly and prominently states the very different cultural centres of gravity between the two "main cultural communities" and grounds their commonality "as an integral part of European culture or Western culture" rather than any specific 'Belgian culture'. This article is quite simply an artificial (i.e. WP:OR) Frankenstein's monster. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ridiculous. ╟─Treasury Tag►belonger─╢ 11:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hi Mister Treasury!. I am afraid that your reasoning should be avoided as described in WP:ATA. It's not enough if you WP:LIKE the article. Several editors have pointed out reasonable arguments why to delete this article so this nomination might not be so ridiculous after all. Deraderum (talk) 11:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think most of us agree this nomination is rather ridiculous. Why would an encyclopedia like Wikipedia not list every group of people, but instead only list some? An encyclopedia should be complete and cover all of them. Dream Focus 14:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment most "keep" comments here are pointing to WP:INHERIT which is an argument to AVOID. If anyone has suggestions, ideas how to resolve the critical problems of the article that I've described in the nomination, it's the time to do it. So far neither of the keep votes did that. Deraderum (talk) 12:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's for the closing administrator to decide. You made the case that WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST in your nomination, which is not a valid reason to delete something. Dream Focus 14:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say "We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this", it was just to show not EVERY country on earth should have its own people's article. In my opinion, an article about Vaticanese people is not very useful, pretty much like the Belgians article, but if you want to start an article about Vaticanese people, be my guest. Deraderum (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Were it not for the fact that I always assume good faith(actually that's not true at all, it's hard, but I try, I do try) I would have thought that this nomination was a joke.
The comparison with Americans is not only irrelevant but fatuous in the extreme. pablo 20:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why fatuous? Why writing pejorative words without explaining what you mean? USA is a country, Belgium is a country. Period. Thus the "comparison" might not be so fatous Deraderum (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because the way that Americans may or may not think of themselves has nothing to do with the way that Belgians may or may not think of themselves, and even less to do with whether the word "Belgians" correctly describes a group of people about whom it is entirely possible to write an encyclopaedia article. pablo 08:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—There are sufficient reliable sources available to establish the topic of Belgian people (as distinct from Belgium) as a notable topic.[1][2][3][4][5] &c. &c. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Keep The only conceivable viable argument is that Belgians are not an entity. Regardless of whether they are composed of various groups, they have all for a few centuries lived under one government, and thus form (or at least have formed) a nation. The article should be revised to show that the basis is the nationality, not something as vague as the culture. If the country splits, as does seem possible, we would then list newly notable people under the appropriate country, but the ones who were notable when Belgium remained a nation would still be under Belgians. Even now, those strongly associated with one culture area should be listed there also, just as we list notable people associated with the US states, for example, List of people from Iowa. The only rational explanation for this nomination I can see is strong nationalist attachment to one of regions — though rational, it's not a relevant argument here, for we observe a NPOV. This does not explain the few experienced Wikipedians supporting this deletion, so I will guess they might simply want to delete as many articles (or at least lists) as possible, regardless of the merits. DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too late, there's already a list of belgians. We can redirect Belgians there. 109.64.106.200 (talk) 07:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's irrelevant. They are not mutually exclusive.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It snows in Belgium, too. The article as written is acceptable, but just needs more sources to be rescued. It's akin to saying that the "British" or "Swiss" or "Lebanese" or "Filipinos" do not exist because they form different "communities" or identifiable groups. I can't see any differnce between those and the Belgians, at least for this argument. Ipso facto a nationality that is documented exists, even if they argue that they might not be a nation, and it should be kept here because every moderately large nationality is per se notable. Is that enough Latin for you? In any case, the branding national myths and symbols is very complex. The Belgians' own identity is wrapped up in its flag, cuisine, and other brands and symbols, although I don't know if any research has directly addressed the "branding of the Belgium myth". Bearian (talk) 16:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where the identity is vested solely in the nation, not a linguistic, ethnic, cultural or communal identity, then surely it makes sense to have the article on the nation in question? But wait, there already is an article on the 'Nation of Belgium' -- just as there is list of belgians listing notable individuals, and numerous other articles besides. So what topic exactly is this article on? Where else do we have an article on a 'national identity' separate from the article on the nation? Incidentally, British and Lebanese are disambiguation pages and Swiss redirects to Switzerland. Filipino redirects to Filipino people, which is explicitly "an ethnic group" (which 'Belgian' is not). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: is anybody concerned that over 2/3 of the citations in the article are for statistics in the infoxbox? "Significant coverage"? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also agree there is a distinct lack of significant coverage here, and I am surprised to see all the WP:SNOWs coming out without any substantial changes to the actual article. I still hold that the information here is not entirely different from what is currently in Communities, regions and language areas of Belgium. Most of you are arguing that there are Belgians, and I am not one to disagree. The term may even be used in encyclopedias, but the information that would be encyclopaedic seems to fit well under Communities, regions and language areas of Belgium. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jethrobot (congrats -- it seems likely you will retain your name). It is not necessary that the references be in the article -- it is sufficient if they exist. That drives my !vote, and quite possibly those of other editors. It is true that at times editors mistakenly believe that the refs must be reflected in the article, but that is not the case.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where the main concern is WP:OR and overlap with existing articles, that refs exist outside the article is largely irrelevant. Nobody is arguing that notable Belgians don't exist, only that there is no notable topic for description here that is not already covered by Belgium (for the nation/national identity), list of belgians (for notable Belgians), Culture of Belgium, etc, etc. Such an argument cannot be rebutted by stating 'but there are refs about Belgians'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per RJH. Oreo Priest ^talk 08:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThe people of Belgium and those near the country don't refer to themselves as "Belgians." Therefore, they shouldn't be referred to as Belgians. This is quite different than "Americans", because the people of the United States would in fact refer to themselves as Americans. Also, Belgium is a divided country (two different ethnic groups), so by referring to them simply as "Belgians", this just creates confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asanti6 (talk contribs) 14:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC) — Asanti6 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Wow, so very wrong. Where did you attain this opinion from? Have you ever even visited the country or made acquaintances with Belgians? Veriss (talk) 01:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least the following Wikipedians self-identify as Belgians: Alexteclo · Angelicapple · Belgianatheist · Blakewiki · Boris Horemans · Cretanforever · Dgeleyn · Didier Misson · Farragutful · Fjoeri · FvdP · Gedeon · Gertjan R. · Kgeurts · Le Liegeois · Lebob · Lycaon · MasterA113 · Mercator · Nickdeclercq · Npettiaux · PHILTHEGUNNER60 · Pierre Bauduin · Pygenot · Random Nonsense · Rickus · Tiekenei · ZeFredz. But for this discussion it is more relevant whether reliable sources that discuss Belgians refer to them as "Belgians". The argument implies we should also not have articles with titles like List of Belgians, List of Belgian architects, etcetera. --Lambiam 15:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Warden. I reluctantly enter this debate only because the policy wonks seem to be flooding the discussion with multiple, repetitive comments and attacks and seem to know nothing of the peoples they comment on. Being an American who married into a Flemish family 25+ years ago, lived and worked in Walloonia for many years, and communicate regularly with Flemish, Walloon and Bruxellite friends, colleagues and family members living there, I can strongly attest to the fact that the residents of Belgium identify themselves as Belgian and refer to themselves as Belgian when their specific region of origin is not germane to the discussion. This is very similar to Texans, Californians, New Yorkers or Southerners generally identifying themselves as Americans unless their region of origin is important to a particular conversation. This article does need improvement but has been tag bombed so is probably discouraging less battle-hardened Wikipedians from contributing to it. Very Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 01:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Demographics of Belgium per WP:V and WP:N. Our own opinion abut whether there are Belgians is not relevant. What matters is what the sources say. And it's not clear from the article that there are reliable published sources that describe the topic of a people called "Belgians". If such sources are added, even if they only say that there are no Belgians, the article should be retained. If not, a redirect is better than the current OR-filled, speculative stub. Sandstein 05:32, 5 July 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.