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 all. Badagnani's comment discounted as disruptive. Sandstein 18:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British Dominicans[edit]

Article is about a non-notable group of 523 people. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible keep and block nominating editor for disruption of our project. Badagnani (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it relates to only 328 people:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Cordless Larry (talk) 22:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. —Cordless Larry (talk) 22:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. British Dominicans would've been worth keeping, but Cape Verdean migration clearly counters the idea that British Dominicans were the smallest group. Cape Verdean migration lacks solid content. = Mgm|^(talk) 22:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible keep and block nominating editor for disruption of our project. Badagnani (talk) 00:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it relates to only 963 people:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible keep and block nominating editor for disruption of our project. Badagnani (talk) 00:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- this is yet another of these random Foo Barian articles that just combine two countries. No notability asserted. I'm looking forward to Austrian Australians and North Korean South Koreans. Oh, and Badagnani, you you you only only only have have have to to to make make make your your your point point point once once once. And calling for a block on a nominator for a good faith (and totally accurate) AfD nomination is not cool. Reyk _YO! 01:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All for failing WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable sources to be found. gnfnrf (talk) 04:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all for no evidence of notability and (as noted by Reyk) this is in line with plenty of recent precedent for deletion of random mixtures of people and localities. Nyttend (talk) 05:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per nom. What's next, an article on Asian Americans born in South Africa? RayAYang (talk) 05:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note — excess !votes have been struck, and user warned for not assuming good faith. MuZemike (talk) 05:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable source to establish notability of this particular group.--Boffob (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~I am also nominating the following related page because it relates to only 595 people:~~

Comment Ummm, maybe you should start another discussion, rather than adding on to this one after significant contributions have been made? gnfnrf (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair point. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 523 people, that is really small. Not notable. I also support the deletion of the other non-notable groups listed. Lehoiberri (talk) 07:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like the majority of these articles these contain no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Nuttah (talk) 11:53, 28 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.