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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton Barr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

he is only a political candidate so does not satisfy WP:POLITICIAN. fails WP:BIO. the death threat coverage is sad but not enough to warrant an article. if he does get elected than he would satisfy WP:POLITICIAN but not yet. LibStar (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Guy who's on the city council running for a seat in the New South Wales legislature, some minor news that I sincerely hope never amounts to anything, and that's about it. If he gets elected, he gets the free pass that all state and provincial legislators get, until then, not at all notable. Mandsford 00:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I hope the authorities arrest whoever threatened his family, but he fails our notability guideline for politicians as he has never been elected to high office. Being a candidate for office isn't enough to qualify. Cullen328 (talk) 03:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, his election is by no means certain, and WP:POLITICIAN. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per above. City councilmen aren't notable by virtue of their holding that office. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, but he's not a city councilman...? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Documents an event of political violence. 144.136.101.108 (talk) 17:05, 27 February 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.

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, but a rename is probably in order. I do not see a consensus below for a particular rename, nor am I about to impose one by fiat, so Mandsford's prophecy has come to fruition. I now punt to a talk page near you. postdlf (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish diaspora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This topic of this article is a neologism constructed through wp:synth. The two sources that are used to support it do only use the phrase once, but are about other topics. This is conflict with WP:NEO which states that "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term.", and WP:RS which states that "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

There are exactly 13 references to "Swedish diaspora" in google scholar. The only one that mentions the phrase in the title is an MA thesis about Diasporic communities in Sweden who come from abroad[1] - here it is clearly used as a euphemism for immigrant communities in Sweden. None of the sources discuss the existence of an actual diasporic community of Swedes outside of Sweden.

The academic definition of the word diaspora is as a group of people living outside of their homeland but maintaning a sense of belonging to the ancestral home. This is the description given in the preface of the Encyclopedia of Diasporas: Immigrant and Refugee Cultures Around the World. Volume I: Overviews and Topics; Volume II: Diaspora Communities Melvin Ember, Carol R. Ember, Ian Skoggard (eds.)p. xiii) - which does btw. not mention Swedish or a Swedish diaspora even once in its almost 1000 pages. No evidence has been presented that Swedish communities outside of Sweden constitute an actual diaspora, rather than simple expatriate communities. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the Swrdish article on the same topic also does not use the term diaspora but is titled sv:Svenskättling - literally "Swedish descendant" which shows that not even swedes consider Swedish Americans to constitute a diaspora community but rather simply a group of Americans of Swedish descent.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. There is ample room in the encyclopedia to cover topics of note involving mass emigrations from Sweden and the communities resulting from such emigrations. That does not mean, however, that the concept of "Swedish diaspora" is notable or even commonly used, as it appears not to be. I urge people who are simply concerned with keeping related content to consider the best way of doing it before simply voting "keep" to this entry. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm changing my vote to it doesn't matter as long as we can discuss a name change. As Mandsford points out in his vote change there has been a significant addition of content. I believe this content does belong in its own entry. It doesn't much matter to me if this is deleted and the new entry is created or if this is kept and we discuss a name change. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand per Category:Diasporas --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind if I format this in line with basic convention instead of the indent which makes it seem like you are responding to me instead of adding your own comment? Also, where is the argument here? I don't see one. Just a keep vote. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep We are currently having this same exact discussion over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norwegian diaspora (2nd nomination). The word "diaspora" is not "neologism" as the nominator said, since the word has been around since 1881 according to Webster's dictionary, which gives a clear definition of the word.[2] Also, there is an article about diaspora on the Wikipedia, and well over a thousand articles with that word in their title. category:Diasporas has 245 subcategories in it. Sources exist for all notable migrations from any group, and they don't have to use the word "diaspora" in them to count. Same arguments from the same people that is going on elsewhere. Please don't nominate a thousand different articles, but instead wait for the outcome of these two. Dream Focus 23:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any editor who is able to read should be able to recognize that this is a gross misrepresentation of the rationale given in the nomination. I am not saying that the word diaspora is a neologism - I am saying that the word "Swedish diaspora" is. And yes per WP:RS and WP:NEO any source has to explicitly treat the topic of the article, and in order to establish notability the topic must have received substantial coverage - not just passing mention.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The list of fictional dogs doesn't need everything on the list to be referenced to someone who specifically called them a "fictional dog", using those exact words. And if someone called a dog a "canine" instead of a dog, you could still have the word "dog" in the article name, no one confused by that at all. Just pretend the word "diaspora" is "migrations". Would Swedish migrations sound fine to you? Dream Focus 23:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any sources about that?·Maunus·ƛ· 23:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the links in the article. Swedish Americans links to an article that stats by saying "Swedish Americans are Americans of Swedish descent, especially the descendants of about 1.2 million immigrants from Sweden during 1885-1915." I'm sure this is all covered in various reliable sources, such as the census bureau.[3] Dream Focus 00:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do those sources not call it a Swedish diaspora? Could it perhaps be because those 1.2 million migrants did not form an actual Diaspora community, but merely went on to become Americans of Swedish descent?·Maunus·ƛ· 00:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/diaspora the movement, migration, or scattering of a people away from an established or ancestral homeland <the black diaspora to northern cities>. You can also see http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/diaspora a group of people who live outside the area in which they had lived for a long time or in which their ancestors lived —usually singular ▪ the art of the African/Chinese diaspora ▪ members of the Diaspora [=Jewish people throughout the world who do not live in Israel] Dream Focus 00:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He is still hung up on the "magic word" concept. Dictionaries are about words, encyclopedias are about broader concepts. Wikipedia could have standardized on a number of terms for this concept, but "diaspora" became the standard. I don't think Sweden and Norway are the exceptions. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless someone actually rescues it. As it is, it's just an article about a the dictionary definition of a phrase that nobody actually uses. Renaming should be part of the rescue. I get tired of these articles called "______ish diaspora" anyway-- a diaspora is a forced scattering of an ethnic group, and not a generic term for emigration. Mandsford 00:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The stub has now been expanded from the initial two sentences to two paragraphs. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, we aren't !voting on the state of an article at any time, every notable topic starts off as a stub. We are !voting on the topic itself. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, do remember we are voting on the topic and that the notability of a topic is determined by substantial coverag in reliable sources not passing mention in tangentially related sources (WP:NEO).·Maunus·ƛ· 16:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep this is a descriptive term, so that bit about neologism seems hokey. Descriptive titles are not prescriptive. It is concise and succint, unless you want a long-assed title like Worldwide distribution of ethnic Swedes outside of traditional areas of Swedish population distribution. The state of the current article sucks, and needs expansion badly, but nominating it for deletion as a neologism seems very odd. That ethnic groups and their migrations are a subject of study by ethnologist should not be in dispute, that "diaspora" is a term used to describe some of these things should also not be in dispute. I fail to see how using a descriptive title is synthesizing a new fact, unless writing sentences that are not wholly plaigirism is also SYNTH. The current article doesn't actually cover anything, except that it says that it should cover something. 65.95.14.96 (talk) 04:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^communicate 15:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename - From our own article on diaspora: The notion of diaspora is often linked with the diasporic community harboring a longing for, or a wish to return to, the ancestral homeland, and generally with a maintenance of a separate ethnic identity over significant periods of time. I don't see any evidence of this being true among Swedish expatriates or their descendants, and I also don't see many sources using the word "diaspora" to describe this phenomenon. I'm not sure what the ideal title would be for the article, but something along the lines of Swedish emigration would work for me. SnottyWong ^communicate 15:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should know better than using Wikipedia as a source in this type of recursive sourcing. It is like eating your own poo. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That bit was added to the article earlier this month by the person currently trying to delete this and the other diaspora article they nominated.[4] Does that text go along with what the source actually says? At its front it defines various worlds [5] Diaspora. A people dispersed by whatever cause to more than one location. The people dispersed to different lands may harbor thoughts of return, may not fully assimilate to their host countries, and may maintain relationships with other communities in the diaspora. It doesn't say it is the word is "often linked" to that, only that these things "may" happen. Go by the actual definition of the word, in a credible encyclopedia or dictionary, not what someone has recently decided to toss into a Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 15:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. This verges on a small group of editors using Wikipedia to publish their own novel view. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is a large group that created the 245 categories and over 500 articles in those categories. I am not sure what makes Swedes and Norwegians the exception, can you tell me what makes them exceptional to the term diaspora? Remember this isn't an article on the word, but the broader concept as defined by the dictionary definition of what defines a diaspora. Diaspora is just the word Wikipedians chose to standardize on. The exact word doesn't have to appear in the reference any more than 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests must appear in the text to be used as a reference. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -I'm with Slrubenstein. Using a dictionary definition in this way is OR. Dougweller (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of a racist thing to say. The definition is "the movement, migration, or scattering of a people away from an established or ancestral homeland". Can I assume that you think the Swedes aren't people? Is it because of the Ikea furniture or the Volvos? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is racist? To disagree with you?·Maunus·ƛ· 23:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It's the Ikea stores, definitely! Still, nobody here is bigoted against persons whose ancestors spoke the Swedish language. I think the problem is in what many of see as misuse of the word diaspora, which was started long ago by someone, not among the debaters here, for no reason I can figure other than maybe they liked the way it sounded. Swedish emigration to other lands could be a notable topic, and the article seems to be moving in that direction. As for the Swedish race, I think Jim Thorpe won a few of those back in 1912... Mandsford 23:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I love the Ikea meatballs in gravy with lingonberries as well as the furniture. The concept of using diaspora in Wikipedia for an all inclusive name for the topic should be debated globally not article by article. I don't see the Swedes and Norwegians as being exceptions from how it is defined by Merriam- Webster. Others have a more narrow view, but Wikipedia already has adopted "diaspora" based on the inclusive Merriam-Webster definition User:Cordless Larry found a great article on the history of the term and how it had started out only referring to the Jews in exile and expanded over the years to the current inclusive definition of "people away from an established or ancestral homeland" and even beyond that where he finds a dozen uses that don't even follow that definition, like the Gay diaspora or White diaspora or Wealthy diaspora. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster.com have no mention of any desire to return. It's just the scatterring of people from the ancestrial homeland. (and also the meaning from the Greek) 65.93.15.125 (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is no a dictionary and we don't rely on dictionary definitions for complex social science topics.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned elsewhere, there is no reliable source that says they are required to always have this desire, only that they may. And dictionaries are reliable sources, so when defining a word, that's the best source to use. Dream Focus 07:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're using dictionaries to determine article titles now? My own experience with dictionaries is that they sometimes get specialist words wrong. I had an argument once with someone who found a dictionary that defined 'archaeology' as dealing with the ancient past and had a hard time convincing him that you can do archaeology in any time period. Using dictionaries in this way is not a good idea. --Dougweller (talk) 12:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just find a more credible dictionary. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/archaeology Are there any major publish dictionaries that would likely have incorrect definitions in them? Dream Focus 12:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename I'm with the nominator on "diaspora" being an inappropriate all-inclusive term for emigrés from a particular place. Swedish migration or Emigration from Sweden would be correct terms for this article on all settlement of Swedes elsewhere. The term "diaspora" has a distinct meaning that is rightly not usually applied to Swedish emigrés, although some might feel it applied to those in the Åland Islands, and the article should point out the political difference there. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is the name by consensus for for 245 articles and categories I don't think Swedes are somehow an exception from the other 244 peoples. See Category:Diasporas]

Each case must be decided on its own merits. In some cases, such as the Irish, use of the term is valid and not uncommon. In others, such as Swedes (with possible exceptions) and Norwegians, it's an inappropriate term and therefore not adequately supported by the souce to what Wikipedia does in the case of other nations is therefore irrelevant as well as self-referential. I'm afraid an important distinction is being blurred in the name of this article, and that remains so no matter how much one might wish history were simpler so that all articles on migration could have similar names. --Yngvadottir (talk) 07:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator: The debate has been split over two articles, please also see:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norwegian diaspora for the bulk of the debate. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a multiple nomination. These are separate nominations. Each article needs to stand on its own merits. What kind of game are you trying to play here?Griswaldo (talk) 12:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion rationale and most of the arguments presented are the same. Dream Focus 12:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not the point. They are separate AfDs of separate entries and someone's argument for one cannot be transposed to another. For instance, User:Mandsford has argued to delete this entry, but while arguing to "weak keep" the Norway entry. If a closing admin takes arguments for deleting or keeping a completely seperate entry into account when making this close, the close will go straight to DRV, regardless of it's outcome. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I assume he voted that way because this article was but a single sentence when he voted, as he points out. The Norway article is more fleshed out. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, good luck with that. This is a Wikipedia naming convention for which you are trying to split off two articles and have them deleted. Two articles, same issue of Wikipedia naming conventions for the English Wikipedia. As I said start and RFC if you don't like the naming convention for the categories and main articles for the category. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• And I agree with that as well. To my knowledge, there's no policy that all so-called diasporas are inherently notable, nor that they're all forbidden. I think that if someone tried to do "North Korean diaspora" it would get shut down quickly; on the other hand, Irish diaspora is pretty secure. If there's any overall consensus at all, it may be that using the same term over and over for the sake of consistency isn't a good idea. I've made it clear that I think it's consistently silly. Mandsford 13:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. We have some rather fundamental policies here that guide the way. What do the sources say? When sources do not refer to expatriate communities of a certain kind as diasporic neither should we. It's very simple.Griswaldo (talk) 14:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per AfD WP:NOTCLEANUP. An article about Swedish communities outside Sweden is without a doubt encyclopedic. The proper forum for concerns about its title and scope is Wikipedia:Requested moves. ^walk victor falk ^talk 20:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our friend R.A.N. has repeatedly cautioned us that we are not voting on the content but on the toopic as described in the title. The article now contains material about Swedish communities outside of Sweden, but the topic is "Swedish diaspora" - we are voting about the notability of that exact topic. Since it cannot be shown to be notable by coverage in reliable sources the article has to be deleted or we will in effect endorse the notability of a topic about which there are no sources. This is the double bind situation in which we have been put.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE per nom and per Mandsford reasonings. If kept at all it should be restructured and renamed, focusing on Swedish immigration, as this is not the classical definition of a "diaspora" and so far this article and its current subject is inherently WP:SYNTH. Heiro 02:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about name changes are made on the talk page, not at AFD. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite common to vote delete or rename or keep and rename in AfD's. IN this case it is especially useful, because it allows the closer to see if there is consensus for letting the article live with under a different topical title.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating for deletion, or voting for deletion, because you think the article should not have the current title is called disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Since when? Point to a policy or guideline that says so. Its a fairly common practice at AFDs. Heiro 20:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Final summary from my view Diaspora is defined by Merriam-Webster as "the movement, migration, or scattering of a people away from an established or ancestral homeland". Maunus found a definition in a book on diasporas that includes "a desire to return to the homeland" as a restriction in usage. "Swedish diaspora" is a relatively new phrase, but not one banned by Wikipedia rules as a neologism, since it goes back to at least 1900 according to Google Books. The word "Swedish diaspora" is used as a synonym for "Swedish migration" by Wikipedians through consensus to cover all topics on migration in 245 categories at Category:Diasporas. There is nothing exceptional about Norwegians and about Swedes that exempt them from either the narrow scholarly use of the term, or the broader Wikipedia use of the term. Nominating this and Norwegian diaspora because of the title is Wikipedia:Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Any arguments about the title could have been made on the talk page or at a Wikipedia:Request for comment. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Final summary from my view. In order to merit an article a topic, as described by the article title, must either be notable as evidenced by substantial coverage in reliable sources OR it must be permissible as a generally descriptive title of a phenomena that is of unquestionable notability. The keep voters have failed to show that the concept of "Swedish diaspora" has been the subject of more than passing mention in sources about various other topics, and they have also proved unable to support the argument that "diaspora" is simply a short hand for the general concept of emigration from Sweden.
• The concept "diaspora" is has a complex history of usage, but at its core is clearly the notion that a people can continue to be a people even though it is dislocated in time and space from a place of origin. This is even implicit in the merriam-webster definition when it talks of "a people that is scattered". The question then becomes when a emigrant group continues to be part of the same people as where they originated and when they become a new people. This is the key point and it is crucial. R.A.N. would have us accept the notion that every and any group that has migrated from X place of origin can be referred to as "x diaspora" whether or not they continue to think of themselves as part of the same people as their ancestors in the place of origin. To this, I and others have argued that definitions, especially those in expert tertiary sources such as the Encyclopedia of Diaspora's and Diaspora theorists like William Saffran but also Merriam-Websters definition, clearly require continued identification with the original people to qualify for being called a diaspora. Now then, how do we find out whether an emigrant group consider them selves sufficiently part of an ancestral people to be labelled a diaspora? The policies of wikipedia allow only one way of doing this: by showing that the majority of reliable sources consider the migrant group to be a diaspora of another group. If we were to judge this ourselves based on our knowledge of the groups in question would be OR. If we were to use descriptions of the sentiments of x migrant group and based on these sources arrive at a conclusionof whether they have enough x-sentiment to be called a diaspora is SYNTH.
• Only by shjowing that a majority of reliable sources consider x migrant group a diaspora can we remain in line with wikipedias WP:NOR, WP:RS and WP:V policies. The sources that R.A.N. have produced are very few in number and it is very dubious that they can be said to represent a majority of scholarship. Secondly they only use the word "diaspora" in passing and thus do not pass muster of the requirement of WP:NEO that "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term.."

In conclusion: the topic "Swedish Diaspora" neither has notable presence in reliable sources, nor can it be defended as a simple shorthand for "Swedish emigration". Whether the article is deleted or renamed is irrelevant as this AfD has had the purpose of establishing that the topic "Swedish diaspora" is not sufficiently notable to merit an article in this encyclopedia. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a combined RFC for Swedish diaspora and Norwegian diaspora and Diaspora.

RFC:Use of the word diaspora in Wikipedia

This is completely disruptive. What's wrong with waiting to see how these AfDs pan out before starting an RFC like this? Not unlike how you (Richard Arthur Norton) filed a DRV on the first deletion of Norwegian Diaspora, and then proceeded to recreate the page well before the DRV ended. Are you trying to disrupt the encyclopedia or are you just plain impatient?Griswaldo (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can request an RFC at any time. I think you are confusing an RFC with a "deletion review". A DRV can only be filed after an AFD and a deletion taking place. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. It's a request for comments, and has no effect on the outcome of this particular argument. There's no disruption. Isn't one of the points of the nomination that "Swedish diaspora" is a phrase that hasn't proven to be notable? Let's assume, for a moment, that the debate is closed as "no consensus". Under that circumstance, wouldn't it be preferable for the article to have a more sensible title? Comments will be received; I doubt they'll change anything. Pointless? Perhaps. Disruptive? No. Mandsford 02:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right, perhaps it does serve a purpose in the case that the afd is closed as no consensus or keep. It is just that Mr. Norton has made it very difficult to assume that his actions are made in good faith. But I'll be willing to try in this case.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I consider it disruptive is that he's preventing people from having a centralized discussion, not to mention that in the secondary discussion he has misrepresented the views of those opposed to him. The second point should not be overlooked either, since he created the RFC and then promptly linked to it at both AfDs. Why do people not have any patience anymore? It would have been nice if he had let the discussion here end before moving onto next steps. It would have been even nicer if he had tried to account for the actual arguments of those he opposes instead of mutilating those arguments and using them to erect straw men. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 04:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did it for just the opposite reason. The arguments are being triplicated at Swedish diaspora and Norwegian diaspora and Diaspora. We needed one place to make the arguments, I should have done it earlier since at this point everyone has already said all they have to say at all three places. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd, upside down, opposite-day arguments against the RFC. 'People who make RFCs should have more patience' (no one usually bothers waiting for people to show up to RFCs; consequently AFDs that should have been RFCs are continually nominated). 'AfDs should be allowed to run their course to not interrupt the discussion about the articles' (RFCs are the proper place for discuss the content of articles; AfDs should only be discussions about titles that are (currently) impossible to make good articles out of). 'Letting people at AfD know about the RFCs is preventing people having a centralized discussion' (self explanatory: the RFC is all in one place, letting everyone know means everyone can join it all in one place). The argument claiming 'racism' below is also ludicrous, but since everyone will hopefully ignore it and not let it affect their judgement of the other arguments on both sides, I won't bother addressing it. Grr. Trying not to read it. CgB is an SPA, btw, if credibility were not already completely gone. Anarchangel (talk) 08:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The words and actions of both Maunus and Griswaldo make their joint racist agenda clear. They are saying that if you are white, then you shouldn't be able to call yourself a "diaspora." It is almost like they are advocating for little brown people at the expense of the white race. Scandanavians are people too. Why all the fuss? Chacha gurl B (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)— Chacha gurl B (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There's not much that causes more "fuss" than for one person to accuse another of racism. That's about as clear a violation of WP:CIVIL as I've seen in awhile. Mandsford 01:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It pretty much needs a rename. There just is not enough scholarly use of the title as it currently exists. And it is going to be pretty hard to come up with a name that isn't 10 words long. But the subject is almost empirically observable to be notable, and not just part of the emigration to the USA, either, but from as far back as the Viking expansion and the Swedish Empire. And also, the current title would make a good redirect, so killing it to remake the article later under a new name does not make sense either. Anarchangel (talk) 08:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Sweden is notable; diaspora is notable, any attempt to mix them is WP:SYNTH through and through. I sincerely hope that this does not become a similar débacle to the bilateral relations marsh. Stifle (talk) 10:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename My earlier !vote was "keep unless someone actually rescues it"; certainly, it's been rescued. I don't have any worries that this will be a problem the way that bilateral relations had been; in fact, it's preferable to a bunch of bilateral articles entitled "Swedish persons in ______land". I think that the bigger problem is the insistence on the use of the word "diaspora", which is offensive to many of us on two levels-- one, for those who are familiar with "The Diaspora", as a generic term for emigration, somewhat like using "holocaust" as a synonym for persecution; two, as an insult to the readers' intelligence, simply because some misguided soul fell in love with the word years ago. I imagine that the closing admin will punt the ball away on the second problem, referring it to a talk page. Mandsford 20:07, 3 March 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.

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawa Science Fiction Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

unremarkable fan club, orphaned article, does not meet WP:ORG, lacks significant coverage in multiple3rd party sources. Supplied references are primary sources, mention the organization only in passing or are simple "community calendar" type articles mentioning an upcoming event. RadioFan (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep

As this group is 35 years old, most of its history took place before the WWW became important enough for most media to post and archive articles on-line. Thus references to OSFS, and its activities are lost to on-line referencing. Add to that, the city lost one of its two major newspapers the Ottawa Journal, halving the potential archives that can be referenced. Additionally, the newspaper that came into being in 1987, the Ottawa Sun is like the New York Post -- not concerned about literary societies, and is more about Sports and promoting the Conservative cause.

Out of the Ottawa Science Fiction Society grew many things. A number of its members went on to because well known in their fields, Fantasy writers Charles de Lint, Galad Elflandsson, Charles R. Saunders; SF Writers like Robert J. Sawyer, Spider Robinson, Sansoucy Walker (http://www.sfcanada.ca/autumn2005/sansoucymemoriam.htm) and artists like Den Beauvais (http://www.denbeauvais.com/) who worked on the Aliens Comic Book, Aputik (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0306730/) and Laura Herring (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2665116/), Jim Cleland (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2655451/) and Janet L. Hetherington.

From this organization's ranks also came the people who ran events like the World Fantasy Convention in 1984, the Furry Convention (C-ACE), and SF Conventions Pinekone, & CAN-CON.

If OSFS is not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, then all of these groups should be removed as well LASFS, BASFA, Birmingham Science Fiction Group, ISFiC, NESFA, Northwest Science Fiction Society, Orange County Science Fiction Club, Philadelphia Science Fiction Society.

Of course, the worst part of this is that I have spend all this time justifying the existence of this article that I didn't write for a group I haven't been a member of for decades rather than adding all of this information to the entry itself.

farrellj (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First off, dont take it personally. Your dedication to this organization is appreciated but all articles, including this one, must meet notability guidelines. Unfortunately without reliable sources, it's difficult to demonstration notability. Without sources the above is all original research. As for the other articles you mention, let's focus on this one.--RadioFan (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless better third party sources turn up. Reading the entry reinforces the impression that this group isn't notable: events include parties at people's homes, meetings followed by conversations at Harvey's... at best this would merit mention at an entry for Maplecon, although whether a Maplecon entry would pass muster is another matter. Hairhorn (talk) 14:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I guess I shouldn't have wandered down memory lane, since some of you take except to that and use it as a justification to delete my article. I had based my entry on the LASFS entry, and it mentioned things that were unique to that club. OSFS has many contributions to the science fiction field in Canada, and they alone should be ground to keep the entry alive. And it's true what farrellj says that there is a dearth of electronically accessible places for citation, and the ones that are there, you just brush off. If that is the policy of Wikipedia, not just a personal interpretation, then Wikipedia will be limited to covering things that have happened in the 21 century almost exclusively. But I don't think that is the intent of this wonderful resource.

The aim of Wikipedia's sourcing rules is to make sure that it's content is relevant and verifiable. The former is always going to be a subjective thing, while the latter is somewhat more objective, but RadoiFan's and Hairhorn's make the it seem that a source such as a newspaper that has been published for a 165 years is questionable. Further more, the quick deletion attempt doesn't give the article a chance to develop at all. I noticed comments in the history section of people who are going to work on improving the volume of citations in the article. So I don't think that the current rush to judgement is justified. Nhaflinger (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no requirement that sources be online. If "165 years" is a reference to The Ottawa Citizen you'll have to come up with something more than a mention, which is all that appears in the sole Citizen source given in the entry. It reads "The event [ie, Maplecon] is organized by Ottawa Fandom Inc., which includes members of the Ottawa Science Fiction Society, the local Star Trek club and, the area's comic collectors club". The society is not mentioned again in the article. Notability requires "significant coverage," this is nothing more than a mention. If there are more articles, please go ahead and dig them up. Hairhorn (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - a SF club that has such notable members is likely to be notable, but I'd like better sourcing. I have met Spider Robinson and Chales de Lint. Bearian (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• keep - does need improvement, though. The link in the article's discussion page yields another five or six Ottawa Citizen citations. Unfortunately, they're scanned images. Worth mining for more info soon. Henry Troup (talk) 03:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'd say we do have enough WP:RS to indicate that this society meets WP:CLUB for local organizations. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as verifiability and notability thresholds are easily crossed. Group organized first science fiction convention in Canada, among other noteworthy accomplishments. - Dravecky (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a shame that this discussion has apparently sent someone on the warpath for all SF fan groups about which he's never personally heard. Possibly only events that draw tens or hundreds of thousands of people are "notable" in his eyes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kastandlee (talk • contribs) 16:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the shame is that we cant seem to focus on meeting the guidelines of Wikipedia here and keep turning focus on individual editors. Organizations of any size can be shown to be notable as long as there are sufficient reliable sources covering them. Either there are or there aren't sources available. There are lots of people here who feel its notable but there hasn't been much backing that up. I suspect the result here is going to be keep, if just to avoid controversy. I hope the closing admin considers Wikipedia guidelines very very carefully. At this point I would support userfying the article until sufficient sources are located.--RadioFan (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - but needs much better sourcing. Many of the fans participating in this discussion are missing the distinction we make here between mere mentions (even in notable and reliable sources), and substantial coverage of an organization. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Shawn in Montreal.

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.

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. Good luck to all you brave souls who participate in the subsequent renaming discussion. Clear eyes, full hearts. postdlf (talk) 02:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian diaspora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This topic of this article is a neologism constructed through wp:synth. The two sources that are used to support it do only use the phrase once, but are about other topics. This is conflict with WP:NEO which states that "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term.", and WP:RS which states that "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

There are exactly 16 references to "Norwegian diaspora" in google scholar. Clunies Ross' (an australian professor of Norse poetry) is one of them. None of the refrerences use the phrase in a way that suggests that this is a set phrase or concept rather than an ad hoc coinage to describe particular migrations of Norwegians in the 19th and 20th century. One other source mentions the phrase in relation to the colonization of Iceland by Norsemen from what later became Norway, she writes "Icelandic archaeology also confirms the rather puzzling picture from the family sagas of the first settlers not as an aristocratic Norwegian diaspora, but as materially poor subsistence farmers, who had few prestige objects from abroad, and modest farmhouses." The usage of Clunies Ross is taken out of context and she clearly delimits the scope of the statement saying that it is only valid "in this context'". Clearly neither of these sources can be used as sourcing for the notion that that there is a general academic consensus that the settlement of of Iceland and the Faroe Islands are part of the same phenomenon that caused the emigration of Norwegians 1000 years later.

The academic definition of the word diaspora is as a group of people living outside of their homeland but maintaning a sense of belonging to the ancestral home. This is the description given in the preface of the Encyclopedia of Diasporas: Immigrant and Refugee Cultures Around the World. Volume I: Overviews and Topics; Volume II: Diaspora Communities Melvin Ember, Carol R. Ember, Ian Skoggard (eds.)p. xiii) - which does btw. not mention Norway or a Norwegian diaspora even once in its almost 1000 pages. No evidence has been presented that Norwegian communities outside of Norway constitute an actual diaspora, rather than simple expatriate communities. ·Maunus·ƛ· 21:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also take a note that diaspora is not synonymous with either immigration, emigration or expatriate community.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep How can a phrase. "Norwegian diaspora" in use since 1955 be considered a neologism? It may have been a neologism in 1955 but has had over 50 years of usage in the United States. We have Category:Diasporas and why are the Norwegians an exception to migration from their homeland while maintaining their culture? I would think that Garrison Keilor would not have a career if it was so. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it has ben used only in passing referring to different things. There is no mention of Norway or a diaspori community of Norwegians in the literature on Diasporas, much less mention that would include the entire population of two modern day countries. This makes as much sense as including Every modern country outside of Africa in the category "African diaspora" because allo humans originally migrated from there.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "no mention of Norway or a diaspori[c] community of Norwegians in the literature on Diasporas" you mean it is not in the book edited by Melvin Ember that you keep referring too. While that book does mention a dozen or so diasporas, not being included in your favorite book, doesn't mean it isn't notable by Wikipedia standards. There are other reliable sources used in the article. You also use "Diaspora" with a capital letter, which Merriam-Webster defines differently form a "diaspora" with a lower case "d". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean no mention of NOrway in the considerable body of literature on Diasporic studies. Just to give a small number of examples: "Theorizing diaspora: a reader Jana Evans Braziel, Anita Mannur - 2003 ", "Diaspora: an introduction Jana Evans Braziel - 2008" "Diaspora and multiculturalism: common traditions and new developments Monika Fludernik - 2003", "Cartographies of diaspora: contesting identities A. Brah - 1996", "Gatherings in diaspora: religious communities and the new immigration, R. Stephen Warner, Judith G. Wittner", "Diaspora politics: at home abroad, Gabriel Sheffer - 2003", "Diaspora, memory and identity: a search for home Vijay Agnew - 2005"... None of these even mention Norway once. Diasporic studies is a large and growing field, despite of this you have not been able to find a single mention of a "Norwegian diaspora" in a book that actually has "diaspora" as its topic... This is not about my favorite book, the way that you have tried to downplay its importance in favor of literature unrelated to the field of diasporic studies has been embarrasing to watch, it is about showing that there is a large field of people who specialize in the study of diasporas and they never ever talk about a Norwegian diaspora, not even a single time.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing two different issues. A "neologism" is a newly coined word, so maybe it was a neologism in 1955 where it first appears in Google Books. What you are arguing is "notability", but the article isn't about a notable word, it is about the notable concept and all the synonyms it entails. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear to me at all, that the uses of diaspora among Lutheran missionaries in the 50s and 60s (earliest such mentions in Google books to which you are referring) are indeed about the same concept at all. In context it appears to mean Norwegian Lutherans specifically. In this sense it is extending the original meaning of Diaspora, into a modern context, from Judaism into Christianity. That is not at all the same as the general usage you've built the page around. Certainly, this would not include the pre-Christian Norsemen who settled Iceland. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The word Diasporas has been around since 1881 according to Webster's dictionary [6]. Its clearly defined. And this discussion seems rather familiar. I do so much hate reruns. Plenty of reliable sources confirming migrations of people from Norway to elsewhere at various times. If you click the Google book search at the top of the AFD, you can even find people calling this Norwegian diaspora, although you don't need to use that exact word to find information about this. Dream Focus 22:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes, the word diaspora exists and the word Norwegian exists - now show me where there is substantial coverage of the phrase "Norwegian diaspora". 16 passing mentions in disparate contexts do not count. Read WP:NEO.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can use migration as a synonym is you like. Its about the migration of people from Norway, not about a word. We could call the article Significant Norwegian migrations throughout history but that'd be a bit long winded, and other Wikipedia articles about this sort of thing use the word diaspora. Dream Focus 22:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to propose a move to another title do it at the talkpage, or if you want to create an article about Norwegian migration you can do that freely. Here we are discussing the notability of the topic "Norwegian diaspora" as Mr. Norton has frequently pointed out. ·Maunus·ƛ· 23:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep My only criticism is that there is almost no content. Otherwise this is not just about the word "diaspora" it is about the people of the "Norwegian Diaspora". This article needs to be populated with notable people of the Norwegian diaspora.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 22:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator removes content as fast as I can add it. Can someone please look minimally at the last reference and last material added about Iceland and decide if it should be restored. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is simply a lie. I have removed one pice of information because it is not supported by the source you are uisng. You have repeatedly (3 times) reinserted it and it is currently in the article because I have not reverted a third time. The reason that there is no content in this article is because it is a non-existant toppic that is not covered in any reliable sources.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. —BurtAlert (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is because your argument is that you know the truth and it overrides what the verifiable reliable source has written. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have never mentioned truth, or given my own interopretation of the topic. I have however asked you to verify the existence of a norwegian diaspora by citing sources that give it a substantial treatment. You have not been able to do so.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Diasporas has 245 subcategories. How many articles total have Diasporas in their title? Dream Focus 23:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably as many articles as there are topic with substantial coverage in reliable sources. Other stuff exists is not an argument.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists is a bad argument when an editor points out one other article newly formed, since anyone can create anew article. It is not when you show a category of 245 articles all in the same style. When you do that it is called a precedent. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Do the other articles look for the exact word being used in all of the sources? Everyone knows what the word diaspora means, or they can look it up. All notable migrations of a people at any time in history, is included in the various diaspora article. Dream Focus 23:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you are not anyone then since you claim that "diaspora" is a synonym of "immigration" and "emigration" (how can one word be synonymous with two antonyms? The logic is astounding.) If you want to know what it means look in scholarly literature such as the Encyclopedia of Diasporas.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You emigrate from one nation to immigrate to another. I used the word "migration" though. Dream Focus 23:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The antonym would be deportation. Emigration and immigration are directional synonyms. You emigrate from a county and immigrate to a country, both talking about the same event. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't matter as long as we can discuss a name change after the AfD closes - This is not a cohesive subject matter covered in depth in reliable sources. If it were the sources would have been produced, but they have not been. There is ample room in the encyclopedia to cover mass emigrations from Norway and the resulting communities in a manner that reflects scholarship on the topic. Let's figure out the proper way to present this content to our readers instead of just pushing the big read "keep" button. OK? Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every notable migration listed in the article is in fact covered. They don't have to call it by the word "diaspora" for it to be one. Dream Focus 23:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has expanded to a second front, see Swedish diaspora which is now up for deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A second "front". This battleground jargon does not help anything. I'm also unsure of what that nomination has to do with this present discussion.Griswaldo (talk) 23:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everything. Unless out of three million articles these two were picked at random. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I suppose you "randomly" happened upon the the other article or deletion discussion? Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep While it's not much yet, I believe that Norton is going to make an article out of this. As with Swedish diaspora, maybe someone can come up with a less exaggerated word for emigration than "diaspora". I don't know who first thought that one up, but it doesn't make the subject sound more sophisticated at all. It's kind of like calling every repression a "holocaust". Mandsford 00:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is an inflation/devalution of the meaning of the word diaspora - migrations yes diaspora no.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a dictionary, so our concern is not with the phrase "Norwegian diaspora" but with the phenomenon. Looking at our category "Diasporas", I see 183 subcategories and 17 articles about the general phenomenon of emigration and emigrant communities originating from various places. Margaret Clunies Ross, who has edited the scholarly works Old Norse Myths, Literature and Society and Old Icelandic Literature and Society is a distinguished scholar with major work published by CUP; I fail to understand why the nom wants us to dismiss her as "an Australian professor of Norse Poetry" whose words on Norwegian diaspora bear no authority. From reading the article's talk page and its history, it seems to me that RAN's effort to write on this topic has indeed turned into a WP:BATTLEGROUND, but the battling doesn't seem to me to be exclusively or even primarily the fault of RAN. Sharktopus^talk 00:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And how can you know that the phenomenon is notable or existant if nobody uses the phrase? Cunies word bearno authority because she is writing about Icelandoc poetry and not norwegian population movements and only sues the word once in passing. Read WP:NEO. And If we want to assign blame regarding battlegrounds we can start by asking who recreates an article before the deletion review is concludced and who starts his arguments by using personal attacks, that would probably go a long way to explain the kind of response RAN is getting. ·Maunus·ƛ· 01:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• comment User:Dreamfocus is now trying to redefine the meaning of Diaspora in the article about that topic to concord better with his keep argument.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You had previously changed it to be your definition of it, quoting a book which has the word "encyclopedia" in its title, but isn't proven to be a reliable source. I tried to clarify things based on the dictionary's definition of the word, since that dictionary is a reliable source. People are welcome to join the discussion there. I'm hoping we'll get more input on this. Dream Focus 01:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what world you live in where an 1200 page academic encyclopedia published by Yale and SPringe press is not a reliable source nut Merriam-Webster's is. Good grief.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[7] Diaspora. A people dispersed by whatever cause to more than one location. The people dispersed to different lands may harbor thoughts of return, may not fully assimilate to their host countries, and may maintain relationships with other communities in the diaspora. Discussing this over there. Dream Focus 01:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep on the simple basis that the article describes with precision its subject matter (an yes it is referenced). If you're arguing about the title, then move it to a better title. Life is really too short for this type of discussion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This argument does not adress the WP:NEO concern - sources are not just any source.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEO does not apply to this topic any more than WP:BLP does. This is not an article about a new phrase or about a novel concept. The phrase "Norwegian diaspora" has uses going back to 1986. Furthermore, "Norwegian diaspora" is just a convenient shorthand way of talking about Norwegian "people dispersed in different lands." Sharktopus^talk 02:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your usage of diaspora makes it impossible to distinguish from others like ex-patriot, tourist, or even colonizer. By that definition African slave communities in the new world would be no more diasporic than British land owners in colonial Kenya. I'm not sure if you understand the irony there, but if you were familiar with the literature on diaspora you most certainly would. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Griswaldo, you are absolutely correct that the traditional use of diaspora has a resonance and depth that is far from its also-accepted-by-dictionaries current meaning, from which I was quoting a fragment. Here are a couple more definitions of "diaspora": "4. any group migration or flight from a country or region; dispersion. 5. ( lowercase ) any group that has been dispersed outside its traditional homeland." It seems to me that the self-defined descendants of Norwegian emigrants do fit that description. See for example Dutch diaspora and Hungarian diaspora, both of which use the term simply to talk about people of foo-descent living outside foo-country. Whether or not the Vikings are part of Norwegian diaspora is surely a matter to deal with in the article's talk page, not by filing an AfD. Sharktopus^talk 03:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep this is a descriptive term, so that bit about neologism seems hokey. Descriptive titles are not prescriptive. It is concise and succint, unless you want a long-assed title like Worldwide distribution of ethnic Norwegians outside of traditional areas of Norwegian population distribution. The state of the current article sucks, and needs expansion badly, but nominating it for deletion as a neologism seems very odd. That ethnic groups and their migrations are a subject of study by ethnologist should not be in dispute, that "diaspora" is a term used to describe some of these things should also not be in dispute. I fail to see how using a descriptive title is synthesizing a new fact, unless writing sentences that are not wholly plaigirism is also SYNTH. The current article doesn't actually cover anything, except that it says that it should cover something. 65.95.14.96 (talk) 04:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the article should not be judged by its title. The Foo Diaspora terms are used for consistency on Wikipedia. If there has been no literature on Norwegians in other countries, then the article should be deleted. But, there are plenty of books about Norwegians who emmigrated to North America and elsewhere; Norwegians in Minnesota, Norwegians on the Prairie: Ethnicity and the Development of the Country Town, Norwegians in Wisconsin, An account of the Danes and Norwegians in England, Scotland, and Ireland, The promise of America: a history of the Norwegian-American people, and From Fjord to Frontier: A History of the Norwegians in Canada. There is a Norwegian presence in San Pedro, California. Sig Hansen from Deadliest Catch is a Norwegian American. There are Norwegian Australians! Abductive (reasoning) 06:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The appropriate descriptive term for an entry like this, and many others that currently use "diaspora" would be "emigration". You all don't seem to understand that there is a substantial literature on "diaspora" in the social sciences, and it is much more than a fancy new term for emigration, which is how you all are using it. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps, but that is not grounds for deletion. My only concern is that Wikipedia has all these articles in the Category:Diasporas and this topic is no different from the rest of them. I would have no problem renaming them all "Foo emigrants" or something, but that would require an RFC. Abductive (reasoning) 12:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The solution here is to rename all of these entries, unless they are really discussing "diasporas", so named in the literature on the various ex-patriot communities. The current entry has next to no content. Deleting it and starting a real entry on "Norwegian emigration" or something like this should not be a problem. As long as it maintains this current title it is problematic. What keeping the entry, as it is, will do is to make such a renaming much more difficult. People will say, "look at the AfD, the community spoke and diaspora is a viable term for this". I really don't think that's the way to proceed. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Norwegian" is notable. "Diaspora" is notable. Any attempt to use this to imply that "Norwegian diaspora" is notable is WP:SYNTH. Stifle (talk) 09:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^squeal 15:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename - From our own article on diaspora: The notion of diaspora is often linked with the diasporic community harboring a longing for, or a wish to return to, the ancestral homeland, and generally with a maintenance of a separate ethnic identity over significant periods of time. I don't see any evidence of this being true among Norwegian expatriates or their descendants, and I also don't see many sources using the word "diaspora" to describe this phenomenon. I'm not sure what the ideal title would be for the article, but something along the lines of Norwegian emigration would work for me. SnottyWong ^squeal 15:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That definition was just written by Maunus, and as you know we don't use recursive logic in Wikipedia. We don't say something is so because it appears in Wikipedia, unless we are talking about issues of style. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a style issue. This article is not going to be deleted, and renaming these articles needs to be done en masse, for which a bigger forum is required for consensus. Abductive (reasoning) 16:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • I essentially agree with this POV, but I think that practically speaking if we don't delete we're going to have a much harder time renaming this and other entries like it. People are going to hold this AfD up as proof that the community supports an entry titled "Norwegian diaspora". That's my biggest worry at this point. Category:Diasporas is filled with entries that need a similar treatment. Note that some expatriate communities are actually referred to as diasporas in the relevant literature, but these need to be sorted out from the rest.Griswaldo (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is Wikipedia going to adjudicate which region's emigrants "deserve" to be called a diaspora and which are just emigrants? The word "diaspora" is now used for emigrant communities including the Dutch diaspora, which is (according to Amazon.com's description of a recent book The Dutch Diaspora) "the former colonial empire of the Netherlands." See also the dictionary definitions many have cited here. The editors of The Encyclopedia of Diasporas have no power to freeze the meaning of an increasingly-common English word. Furthermore, letting the word's meaning be used in a general way is a benefit to our readers, since it will help them find articles they are looking for. We can leave it to the text of the articles to inform readers of the circumstances that caused emigration in various cases.Sharktopus^talk 16:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The irony here is almost drowning me. Wikipedians are the ones who have claimed the term diaspora for groups of people who are rarely ever called diasporic in reliable sources. That's the very point here. Reliable sources refer to some populations as diasporas, while not referring to others as such for a good reason. You may wish to figure out why. Either way, here at Wikipedia we go by what the sources tell us. Your argument is completely self-contradictory. You falsely claim that others are doing exactly what you are yourself arguing for.Griswaldo (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • This article is not going to be deleted for having a bad title. I strongly urge interested parties to hold an RFC on a better naming system. Abductive (reasoning) 16:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Dictionaries and general usage have long ago made the change Griswaldo deplores. This is not evil Wikipedians leading a mob up the mountain to demolish your castle, this is Wikipedians following common usage of a useful term now used to denote a wide range of emigrations. Nobody is being harmed by this expansion of an old word's definition.Sharktopus^talk 16:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • You are asking us to be ok with original research. It has never been OK to create compound words based on dictionary definitions and apply them to subjects that are not covered by reliable sources under those concepts. Especially when other subjects are discussed in reliable sources under those concepts. Also, please understand that dictionaries offer only very broad definitions of terms. Encyclopedias are able to discuss those terms a greater depth, following the mainstream literature on a topic. That's what we're meant to do here. As I noted already, if the literature calls a certain emigrant group diasporic and not another that's what we do. It is not up to you are I as editors to say ... "well despite what the literature does, I can logically explain how group Y is also diasporic based on a one sentence dictionary definition, so that's what we'll call it here". Once again, that's ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians make stylistic decisions all the time for how articles will be organized and what the topics will be called. Please note that the most edited article last week is a neologism, the exact phrase used in the title doesn't appear outside of Wikipedia: 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests, yet everyone making the edits understands what belongs in the article and understand it is an article that is going to touch on a broad range of issues. We don't spend hours debating what is a "protest" and what is a "demonstration". Every reference work makes stylistic decisions that are going to irk someone. There are a half dozen here that I would have done differently, but I don't go from article to article trying to delete the ones that contain the name or formatting I dislike, I lobby to make the change globally. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. This verges on a small group of editors using Wikipedia to publish their own novel view. The only response supporters seem to have is their constant reliance on dictionaries. Not only is this unencyclopedic, it is often a sign of OR. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and sanction nominator. The article is great and the nominator seems to have it in for Scandinavians and their advocates in the present day. Racism? I think perhaps Ja. Chacha gurl B (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This editor has registered today and has repeatedly vandalized the the nominated article.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As of February 11, this was the entire lede on Diaspora: "A diaspora (from Greek διασπορά, "scattering, dispersion"[1]) is the movement or migration of a group of people, such as those sharing a national and/or ethnic identity, away from an established or ancestral homeland." On February 11, Maunus filed the first AfD against Norwegian diaspora, on February 12 and 13 he [8] replaced this accurate definition with a much more restrictive one that is now presented to us as the "established" usage Wikipedia articles must honor. This established usage was established less than two weeks ago, cherry-picked out of the universe of all the various definitions in WP:RS in order to support wiping out articles that use the word to mean exactly what it used to mean up until February 12. Sharktopus^talk 19:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It really interesting how "cherry picking" a large academic encyclopedia about the very topic the article treats can be seen as problematic. There is a movement in wikipedia to use only the most trivial definitions of understandings and definitions and exlcude actual academic discussiond and definitions of concepts that originate in academia - this trend I am produly opposing. A scholarly encyclopedia trumps laymans understandings and dictionary definitions every day. Secondly it is not as if I am frivolously nominating for deletion here - the first afd was closed as delete and yet the article was recreated within hours of the closure. This comment by Sharktopus is an unfounded attack on my integrity as an editor and academic and should not go uncommented by administrators. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can people help decide whether the Settlement of Iceland belongs in the Category:Norwegian diaspora. The reference in Norwegian diaspora clearly places the Settlement of Iceland as part of the diaspora, but the category keeps getting removed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what a great "reference" that is. The snippet from google scholar says "So, in this context, Iceland was just one of many, the last settled colony of the Norwegian diaspora. " have you actually taken a look at the book to find out in which specific context she is talking about? My guess is that you haven't. Immpressive scholarship.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith. And the book is one of a series of books published by Cambridge University, and seems quite notable. Dream Focus 08:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I might assume good faith - but in this case I have no reason to assume competence. What context is she talking about? The book is probably notable in the study of skaldic poetry in which Dr. Clunies-Ross specializes - but it is not notable as a source on Norwegian migrations.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Argue against the ideas, not against me personally please. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will keep that in mind Randy.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RAN, I wonder if expanding this topic to Scandinavian diaspora might solve some of your problem with the Vikings. Maunus, as an admin yourself, could you set a better example here on WP:CIVIL? Sharktopus^talk 20:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You and R.A.N. have been making personal uncivil remarks against me from the very outset of this case, attempting to impute me as a person and as a scholar. I do not appreciate your insinuation that I am the one personalizing this dispute. ·Maunus·ƛ· 21:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never even heard of you until I stumbled on this article a couple of days ago; your AfD of a previous version of this article was filed on Feb. 12. RAN already explained that his reference to Essjay was based on an impression that you (like Essjay) wanted your own opinions to trump material found in WP:RS, not on a wish to cast doubt on your userpage claim to be a grad student/scholar studying whatever, which I also don't doubt. Sharktopus^talk 05:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Such an expansion would be extremely problematic. Scandinavia is a region encompassing a variety of ethnic groups and cultures. You would want the plural at the very least there. "Scandinavian diasporas", but then I would not advice this unless it is a concept one may find in reliable sources.Griswaldo (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Griswaldo is now depopulating Category:Norwegian diaspora. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not so. You added two entries that do not belong in the last couple of days. The Norse settlement of Iceland and colonization of North America do not belong in the category. I note that you are simply reverting without discussing on the talk page or even using edit summaries. Nice to see you tattle on me here though. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is the beauty of "undue" it creates its own summary. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It simply states what you are doing and offers no explanation for why. I see you are still not using the talk pages. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster.com have no mention of any desire to return. It's just the scatterring of people from the ancestrial homeland. (and also the meaning from the Greek) 65.93.15.125 (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can people come to Settlement of Iceland and weigh in on whether the Settlement of Iceland should be in the Category:Norwegian diaspora. The category already includes "Norwegian migration to North America". I think the argument being made is that the Norseman of 1,000 years ago are not synonymous with the modern state of Norway that was created in 1905. But by that argument any pre-1905 event should be struck from the article on Norway. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A google book search for "Norwegian diaspora" returns about 27 hits, "Norse diaspora" returns a further 5, and "Scandanavian diaspora" (which would include Norse migrants) around 47 - so the subject is notable and verifiable the only argument that has any weight here is WP:NEO and that rests only on whether all these sources simply use the term "Norwegian diaspora" or whether they are about the concept of the Norwegian diaspora - browsing through these sources I have to conclude it is the latter as they are mainly reliable texts about Norse migration and colonization. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 00:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are several hundred hits if you look in books on Norway and then search for diaspora. Books that have Norway as their topic don't use the phrase "Norwegian diaspora", they just say "diaspora" because the reader already knows the topic is Norway. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Lets be clear here. "Scandinavian diaspora" and "Norse diaspora" turn up hits to the Viking age. "Norwegian diaspora" turns up only one such hit. I'm not convinced at all that most of these books discuss the concept in depth. Also, please compare those 27 hits to these 122,000 dealing only with the subject of Norwegian emigration to America. If "Norwegian diaspora" is a mainstream term for the subject matter discussed in this entry why does it only appear 27 times in Google books, amidst this vast literature? Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is writing these things to try and change your mind, we all know where you stand on the issue. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summary up to this point It is a relatively new phrase, but not one banned by Wikipedia rules, since it goes back to [at least] 1986. The word "diaspora" has been replacing the word "migration", and has been adopted by Wikipedians through consensus to cover all topics on migration in 245 categories. There is nothing exceptional about Norwegians and about Swedes that exempt them from either the scholarly use of the term, or the broader Wikipedia use of the term. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1986? Google books hits show it's use in 1955,1960,1973,1978,1980 so it's not even a new term. @Griswaldo There is a difference between general emigration and diaspora. As "Ember, Ember and Skogard" says, Emigrants will often integrate fully with the country and culture they emigrate to whereas member of a diaspora are more likely to retain contact with other communities within the diaspora and make plans to return to the homeland when the cause of their leaving is resolved. In sources, the Norwegian diaspora is used to refer to outposts of the Viking empire, Norwegian Americans who put political pressure on the Swedish government to give Norway independence, how the Norwegian Lutheran church grew in America among American-Norwegian communities who retained their Norwegian culture, and so on. I've no doubt you could write an article on Norwegian emigration, but the subset of that emigration that is diaspora is notable in it's own right and does not meet any reasons for deletion, only reasons for improving the article.Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 09:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Ember has a much narrower definition than Merriam-Webster as does William Safran in 1991. But I don't think the Wikipedia approach should be to discard the dictionary definition for a narrower rule developed by any individual. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between Ember, Ember and Skoggarrd and Safran as opposed to the merriam webster dictionary is that the first mentioned are scholars and experts on the topic of Diaspora and the second is not. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionaries are not written by trained monkeys at typewriters. I think it is safe to assume that dictionaries are written by experts, just not experts that agree with your favorite book's more restrictive definition. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But Merriam-Webster is still quite narrow as all definitions are made relating back to an "ancestral homeland" if a second generation immigrant comes to consider the country they are born in as their homeland then they've already moved out of Merriam-Webster's definition of Diaspora and within another generation there may be no consideration of the change of nationality and culture. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken if you think all of those 27 sources are discussing Norwegian emigration in the manner you claim. They are not. More importantly however, thousands of other sources do discuss Norwegian emigrant communities of that kind without using the term "Norwegian diaspora". It is clearly a term used by very few. In terms of the Viking era, that few is exactly ONE source. Please stop referring to sources in the plural there. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please maintain civility, In my previous post, I already established that I believed that use of the terms "Norse" and "Scandinavian" were synonymous with "Norwegian" when sources discussing the diaspora of Norway. Should the term be changed? I don't think so Scandinavian is too general and can cover other Scandinavian countries and "Norse" is used far less in Reliable sources than "Norwegian" however these sources do establish Norwegian emigration in the Viking period as a diaspora. Interestingly the term Diaspora is only applied to the first and third waves of Norwegian emigration (Viking and the Americas) the second to mainland Europe and primarily the Netherlands don't use this term, so whilst sources may consider that an emigration tey do not consider that it formed the specific identity of a Diaspora. I also think if you check all 27 sources you will find that the majority are discussing the Norwegian Diaspora in the way that I claim and only perhaps 1 or 2 use it in the general way of identifying all Norwegian emigration. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are quite different. Norse, and Scandinavian encompass much more than the inhabitants of the territory of Norway, which was not one singular cultural or political entity during the entire Viking era, certainly not when Iceland was settled. There is a good reason why "Norwegian diaspora" is not used by these sources. It is not just happenstance. To refer to Norwegians at all in this era is absurd. Yes some Norsemen might be proto-Norwegians, or the ancestors of modern Norwegians and those would be Norsemen who remained in Norway. The Norsemen who settled in Iceland are not, and were never "Norwegian". They are the Norse ancestors of present day Icelanders.Griswaldo (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC) \[reply]

By the way, the vikings who colonized the Americas did not even originate from the geographic region now known as Norway. They are absolutely not Norwegian. If the claim is that their ancestors did then why stop there, because every human inhabitant of the entire earth is just part of the African diaspora in that case.Griswaldo (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they did. In the Settlement of Iceland it says they came from Norway. Click on the names of the guy who discovered it, and in his article it says he was from Norway. In Norway right now, they teach their children about their viking ancestors in all the schools. Dream Focus 14:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It says the settlers of Iceland (not the Americas) came from Norway because that's the way we currently refer to the region they inhabited. It does not call them Norwegian for a very good reason. The term Norwegian does not appear in the entry for the same very good reason. Because back then, one was not Norwegian. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't seem to have an issue with discussing say German Diaspora where our articles on pre-unification emigration treat the two as comparable however unlike German there is no single term like "Volkdeutsche" that is not already used to connote some more specific or more general meaning that is separate from this - it does not mean that a term cannot be applied evenly as some sources already do with Imsen preferring "Norse" and Ross preferring "Norwegian". On some of your other points "Americas" refers to those who left Norway in the 1850s to early 1900s during Swedish rule -not early Norse settlers in the new world. I also noted that we should focus on sources which specifically addressed the Norwegian elements of a Norse (2 sources of the 5 use Norwegian as well as Norse) or Scandinavian (18 of the 45 use Norwegian as well as Scandinavian) Diaspora. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rename I'm with the nominator that "diaspora" is not correct in this case, as reflected by the lack of sources, but that the topic itself, under a title such as Emigration from Norway or Communities of Norwegian origin, is notable. The implication in the use of the term "diaspora" of a feeling of exile and wish to return (which derives from the original exclusive use for the Jews) makes it an insulting word when used of some modern communities, notably Iceland; as reflected in the sources, to equate all emigré groups with diaspora is not a modern and acceptable usage, but a blurring of an important distinction and in many cases a great oversimplification of history. Which does indeed fall under WP:SYNTH. While information on the people of Norwegian heritage in various parts of the world and how and when they got there is encyclopedically valuable, the article should be moved to a more accurate title and distinguish clearly between cases and periods. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The Cambridge Introduction to the Old Norse-Icelandic Saga By Margaret Clunies Ross [9] is published by Cambridge University. Is this used as a textbook in any of their classes? As I and I believe others have quoted from it before, it says "Iceland was just one of many, the last settled colony of the Norwegian diaspora." on page four. [10] There are a series of books from that university which start with "The Cambridge Introduction to" in the title, so I assume the university gives its backing to what is being published. Everyone post whether they believe this to be a reliable source or not please. I certainly do. Dream Focus 08:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out above, that is a reference to events more than 1,000 years ago, and the sentence actually says that the settlement of Iceland was the last such diasporic colony. After that have come many political events, not the least of which was the assassination of Snorri Sturluson for treacherously seeking the reunification of Iceland with Norway, the dissolution of the Icelandic Commonwealth. I would not be surprised if this is why the category keeps getting removed from the article. Use of the term diaspora is at best extremely anachronistic and potentially insulting. Icelanders are proud of their independence. There is a real distinction here, not just a hang-up over words, and that citation does not support use of the term in the contemporary context. --Yngvadottir (talk) 08:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It says it was the last "settled colony" of the Norwegian diaspora, not that other things considered a diaspora didn't come after that. Dream Focus 09:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either way it is one source. There are thousands of sources discussing the "settlement of Iceland" and not a single one of the others use that term.Griswaldo (talk) 12:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can not delete an article because it follows the same naming conventions of hundreds of other articles of the same type. We're here to discuss whether the article is a notable subject or not, not what terms it uses in its title. Dream Focus 12:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? What does that have to do with your claims just above which have been thoroughly debunked. I'm responding directly to your claim that the settlement of Iceland, and other Viking era migrations are part of this topic, which they are not. Your reply is a non sequitur. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The diaspora category is a Wikipedia style developed by consensus. If you think the category should be changed to "migration" then you are welcome to start a "request for comment". But depopulating the category with entries for Norway and Sweden and deleting the main articles for only Norway and Sweden is disruptive. We then have an incomplete set of 245 entries minus 2, because somehow Norway and Sweden are exceptions to the Wikipedia style. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NO there are legitimate entries in the category. There are others that are about migration more generally and yes should be in another category. There is no reason why this can't be sorted out, and why we can't develop style conventions that reflect what reliable sources do. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't produced a reliable source to contradict the reliable source used to include. You are arguing Wikipedia:truth and we are arguing Wikipedia:reliable sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to provide a source stating that the moon is not made of green cheese or that there were no animated skeletons fighting in the peloponessian war. And you also are apparently incapable of using our policy WP:RS to realize that a source is only reliable in a specific context. In this case noone has even bother to look in the book to find out what context Clunies-Ross is actually talking when she starts her statement by "In this context, ...".·Maunus·ƛ· 20:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is called the strawman fallacy where you set up a ridiculous idea then knock it down as if it were made of straw and then conclude that it applies to the previous argument. No one argues that the moon is made of cheese, yet we have sources saying that migration and diaspora are synonyms. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you keep repeating yourself then it will become true clearly. I have supplied plenty of evidence. But you can't prove a negative in the manner you propose. The point is that the subject matter of this entry (Norwegian emigration) is discussed in thousands of sources, while only 27 of those have used this term, and when they have usually once in an entire book. Here are some examples, but again what's the point of listing them one by one? [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. These books discuss the community of immigrants, their ties the homeland, their continuance of cultural practices, without ever using the term diaspora. That a handful of sources have used the term, to discuss the same subject is not in dispute.Griswaldo (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Another attempt at a summary: Several issues are being raised. A major point for the nom is that the word "diaspora" should be reserved for emigrant populations "foo" that have been extensively discussed by scholars using the exact words "foo diaspora." Even if this assertion is accepted (the assertion is being debated here and at Talk: Diaspora), do we need to delete an article-in-progress about the Norwegian emigrant community in order to preserve diaspora's most restrictive meaning? A second major point is whether or not the Viking expansion should be part of this article. In my opinion, it should not -- but that question should be dealt with by consensus on the article talk page, not by filing an AfD. I have been arguing against deletion, but I think that the Viking diaspora should be dealt with in Viking expansion, not conflated with the past hundred-plus years of emigration from Norway. Sharktopus^talk 19:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that several things are being conflated, and I think we actually, basically agree. I am in this second afd because R.A.N. has stubbornly defended the notion that the topic of "Norwegian diaspora" is notable in spite of a complete lack of treatment of that topic in reliable sources. I am not arguing that wikipedia should not have an article about emigration from Norway or, Norwegian immigrant communities in the US. I am arguing against the idea that all emigrations and immigrant communities shall be blanket labeled as "diasporas" without regard to how reliable sources call those communities. If someone had suggested to rename the article to "ex-patriate Norwegians", "Norwegian migration", "Norwegians in the US", or something similar I would have supported that idea as long as the article treated that topic and was based on sources. However due to the tenacity of certain editors here, and the way they have shifted the argument to be about consistency of style taking preference over the existence of reliable sources and to the notion that new topics can be constructed as neologisms by using a dictinary, I am now forced to push for this article to be deleted in order to show that it is not ok to create articles about topics that are not supported by substantial coverage in secondary sources. Is this a sad waste of time? yes. ·Maunus·ƛ· 20:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Working to enhance the possible good-will here, I endorse your wish for the article Diaspora to reflect current and past scholarship. But (just to go to an analogy here) the only True bug is a hemipteran arthropod, and woe betide any zoology grad student who calls a coleopteran a bug. The word "bug" also has a colloquial meaning -- it gets used alone or in compounds like Pill bug or even Software bug. Having non-scholars use the word "bug" in colloquial ways does not damage the ability of scientists to define a "true bug" and make a scholarly article available here to readers. The common noun "diaspora" is not as common a noun as "bug" but it is becoming common enough as a synonym for ethnic communities living outside a homeland that many Wikipedia articles already refer to such communities as "foo diaspora." Perhaps an RfC about what to do with all such article titles would provide a good forum to address the larger issue. Sharktopus^talk 21:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this rather amiable exhhange which provides a delightful break. I do maintain that I don't think wikipedia articles should take the colloquial meaning of words as their point of departure - unless this is already well entrenched in the reliable sources about the topic. I think the academic usage of words should generally be privileged, because this is an encyclopedoia and not a dictionary. I realize that this is perhaps not the view of the general community and this is why I believe this Afd is of principial importance, because it goes to the heart of how we use sources to support notability, and naming of articles - and how we weigh internal consistency vs. consistency with academic usage. I think an RfC might be a good idea - but in my experience Afd's get much more community attention than rfcs.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is called disrupting Wikipedia to make a point when you call for the deletion of an article because of the semantics of the title. There is the talk page to discuss name changes, and RFCs for larger issues about global naming in Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is disrpution yes, the disruptor however is you who recreates articles already deleted, argues without basis in policies, makes personal attacks from the get-go, and who has clearly argued that if this article is not deleted that that will be evidence for its notability and a precedent for naming of further articles following the same flawed logics in effect leaving me no other option than to get these articles deleted in order to hinder the creation of swathes of similar unsourceable articles. This is now a matter of principle and you made it that way.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's remember the old wise saying, keep your words sweet and tender, you may have to eat them. Sharktopus^talk 23:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per AfD WP:NOTCLEANUP. An article about Norwegian communities outside Norway is without a doubt encyclopedic. The proper forum for concerns about its title and scope is Wikipedia:Requested moves. ^walk victor falk ^talk 20:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• My position is that the nominator and the delete !voters above have failed to understand Wikipedia's rules on this, and in particular they've failed to understand the reasons for the rules.

  The rule is WP:BEFORE: where there is an alternative to deletion, don't delete. In this case there's an alternative, which is to convert this title into a redirect to Viking expansion. The references already provided in the article show that "Norwegian diaspora" is an attested alternative name for the Viking expansion, in scholarly literature. As such it's a plausible search term and we can do better for our users than to give them a redlink.

  The reason why "redirect" trumps "delete" in this case is because a "delete" outcome leaves a redlink that directly encourages inexperienced editors to write an article in that space. If we give them a redirect to follow instead, then we can save a lot of discussion and process the next time around.—S Marshall T/C 12:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in essence that this should be handled differently, but perhaps you missed the fact that an entry with this title was recently deleted. That explains the reason for renomination I think above anything else, though you're right. In the end another solution will most likely be found. That said I take issue with the bulk of your assertions. This is not an "attested alternative name for the Viking expansion". It is used in only one source in that manner. I repeat, one source. Sources use labels like "Scandinavian" and "Norse" when discussing the vikings because claiming a "Norwegian" ethnic or cultural group in most of that time period is almost silly. "Norwegian diaspora" is therefore not a plausible search term for Viking expansion at all. It ought to redirect to an article that discusses Norwegian emigrant communities from the modern era. That is what the bulk of few sources that use the term are referring to when they do ("bulk" equals all but one).Griswaldo (talk) 12:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In the interest of harmony and uniformity, could the renaming of this article be postponed until after there has been a wider discussion of what to do about similarly-titled articles such as British diaspora and Dutch diaspora, and others which (like this article-title) use "diaspora" in its increasingly-common unscholarly sense to mean "emigrant communities"? Sharktopus^talk 14:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. We need to treat each entry on its own. The issue isn't whether all entries should stop using the term "diaspora". A broader discussion will only muddy the waters here and create gridlock. We can't decide on each individual case in such a discussion. Nor should we.Griswaldo (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, Griswaldo, I don't think I made my suggestion clear. What I would suggest is that the discussion of "diaspora" be concluded before re-naming articles in any individual case, including this one. If consensus agrees on some delimiting meaning of "diaspora", or if it agrees that "diaspora" cannot be used for any nationality that has not been treated at length by diaspora scholars as "foo diaspora", then it will be time enough to rename some articles but not others, in my opinion. Closing discussion now should be absolutely without prejudice to a future re-naming of the article if consensus agrees that "diaspora" is the wrong word here. I see that a wider discussion has been proposed below but I hope some knowledgeable admin will move it to an appropriate noticeboard where it can get wider input from admins and others whose grasp of our policies is much wider than my own. Sharktopus^talk 17:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot determine the meaning of diaspora for use across the encyclopedia, and as used within compound words or phrases. That's my point. If there is a Norwegian diaspora it is determined via reliable sources that discuss a "Norwegian diaspora" and not through some Wikipedia wide consensus of what "diaspora" is that is then applied to sources about Norwegian emigrants which themselves never use the term. The wider discussion proposed below is framed in such a way that no meaningful discussion can be had between those who share my perspective and those who share RAN's. It is a bogus question he has posed. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<--It is your contention that "Norwegian diaspora" cannot be used to mean "Norwegian emigrant community" even though about 15+ Google Book results use the phrase to mean exactly that. The basis of that contention is a series of different claims: 1) 1) that WP:RS do not suffice to determine the meaning of words because scholarly definitions of any word are privileged, 2) that the policy WP:NEO forbids any use of "diaspora" that scholars have not extensively studied, and 3) that WP:SYNTH forbids using "diaspora" in article titles with its increasingly-common meaning of "dispersed community sharing some kind of identity" (and scholars too are using the term just that way, Google "gay diaspora"). All those contentions and claims are disputed. That is why we need a wider discussion. Sharktopus^talk 22:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The article's topic is clearly notable (established by reliable sources). I offer no opinion on whether or not there is a better title for the article. Blueboar (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I remain unable to understand how the "topic" can be something other than what is described in the title. We are voting on the topic that the title describes, not the current content of the article. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is described in the title is "Norwegian emigration and emigrant communities" or maybe even "people who consider themselves Norwegian but do not live in Norway. Those are common, modern meanings of the word "diaspora", see for instance scholarly discussions of "gay diaspora." There is no need to delete an article that is about X just because someone claims that anything with that article title must be about Y. An AfD is a vote on whether or not to delete an article, not a vote on whether or not the page should be moved to a different title. Sharktopus^talk 08:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE:no coverage in reliable sources as this topic. Maybe the small bit of information garnered so far could be merged into an article about Norwegian immigration. Heiro 02:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per Dream's thoughtful comments, and the coverage discussed above.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Final summary from my view Diaspora is defined by Merriam-Webster as "the movement, migration, or scattering of a people away from an established or ancestral homeland". Maunus found a definition in a book on diasporas that includes "a desire to return to the homeland" as a restriction in usage. "Norwegian diaspora" is a relatively new phrase, but not one banned by Wikipedia rules as a neologism, since it goes back to at least 1955 according to Google Books. The word "Norwegian diaspora" is used as a synonym for "Norwegian migration" by Wikipedians through consensus to cover all topics on migration in 245 categories at Category:Diasporas. There is nothing exceptional about Norwegians and about Swedes that exempt them from either the narrow scholarly use of the term, or the broader Wikipedia use of the term. Nominating this and Swedish diaspora because of the title is Wikipedia:Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Any arguments about the title could have been made on the talk page or at a Wikipedia:Request for comment. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Final summary from my view. In order to merit an article a topic, as described by the article title, must either be notable as evidenced by substantial coverage in reliable sources OR it must be permissible as a generally descriptive title of a phenomena that is of unquestionable notability. The keep voters have failed to show that the concept of "Norwegian diaspora" has been the subject of more than passing mention in sources about various other topics, and they have also proved unable to support the argument that "diaspora" is simply a short hand for the general concept of emigration from Norway.
• The concept "diaspora" is has a complex history of usage, but at its core is clearly the notion that a people can continue to be a people even though it is dislocated in time and space from a place of origin. This is even implicit in the merriam-webster definition when it talks of "a people that is scattered". The question then becomes when a emigrant group continues to be part of the same people as where they originated and when they become a new people. This is the key point and it is crucial. R.A.N. would have us accept the notion that every and any group that has migrated from X place of origin can be referred to as "x diaspora" whether or not they continue to think of themselves as part of the same people as their ancestors in the place of origin. To this, I and others have argued that definitions, especially those in expert tertiary sources such as the Encyclopedia of Diaspora's and Diaspora theorists like William Saffran but also Merriam-Websters definition, clearly require continued identification with the original people to qualify for being called a diaspora. Now then, how do we find out whether an emigrant group consider them selves sufficiently part of an ancestral people to be labelled a diaspora? The policies of wikipedia allow only one way of doing this: by showing that the majority of reliable sources consider the migrant group to be a diaspora of another group. If we were to judge this ourselves based on our knowledge of the groups in question would be OR. If we were to use descriptions of the sentiments of x migrant group and based on these sources arrive at a conclusionof whether they have enough x-sentiment to be called a diaspora is SYNTH.
• Only by shjowing that a majority of reliable sources consider x migrant group a diaspora can we remain in line with wikipedias WP:NOR, WP:RS and WP:V policies. The sources that R.A.N. have produced are very few in number and it is very dubious that they can be said to represent a majority of scholarship. Secondly they only use the word "diaspora" in passing and thus do not pass muster of the requirement of WP:NEO that "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term.."

In conclusion: the topic "Norwegian Diaspora" neither has notable presence in reliable sources, nor can it be defended as a simple shorthand for "Norwegian emigration". Whether the article is deleted or renamed is irrelevant as this AfD has had the purpose of establishing that the topic "Norwegian diaspora" is not sufficiently notable to merit an article in this encyclopedia. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Final summary from my view: Our policy WP:TITLE recommends short titles where possible and consistency among Wikipedia articles on similar topics. "Foo diaspora" is shorter than "foo emigration and emigrant communities." It is consistent with the usage of "diaspora" on other articles in Wikipedia, including articles on groups such as the Irish where most people agree there is a "diaspora" in the older sense, and in each case the article lede makes clear what the title describes:
• "The Irish diaspora (Irish: Diaspóra na nGael) consists of Irish emigrants and their descendants..."
• "The Albanian diaspora encompasses Albanians outside of Albania and Kosovo."
• "The British diaspora consists of British people and their descendants who emigrated from the United Kingdom."
• "The French diaspora consists of French emigrants and their descendants..."

Norwegian emigration, Norwegian emigrants and their descendants, and Norwegian diaspora communities are notable topics. It would be efficient, simple, short, in accord with Wikipedia practice for other similar articles, and in accord with our policy WP:TITLE that an article covering these topics have the name Norwegian diaspora. Sharktopus^talk 04:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD has an RFC for both Swedish diaspora and Norwegian diaspora.

RFC:Use of the word diaspora in Wikipedia

This is completely disruptive. What's wrong with waiting to see how these AfDs pan out before starting an RFC like this? Not unlike how you (Richard Arthur Norton) filed a DRV on the first deletion of Norwegian Diaspora, and then proceeded to recreate the page well before the DRV ended. Are you trying to disrupt the encyclopedia or are you just plain impatient?Griswaldo (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could we please discuss Wikipedia articles and policies not personalities? I think any discussion of the usage of diaspora should be in a public forum such as an RfC or the OR noticeboard, not on a randomly created new page. Sharktopus^talk 20:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the above page has been moved to User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Use of the word diaspora in Wikipedia, so that it won't be deleted via G8. lifebaka++ 20:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I posted what I thought was a rather open description of our dispute at WP:OR/N. From an iPhone in a swaying taxi comes this inadeqyate notification , sorry. Sharktopus^talk 22:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you two User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) and User:Griswaldo really going to edit war over this on an AFD page? Heiro 05:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made one revert (and did not intend to make any more should it have been reversed). Hardly edit warring. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 05:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And for the record I made the revert because I had a look at concern of the other editor who tried fixing the formatting here twice now. The log page for the 21st is completely malformed in the TOC because of the two "RFC" sections RAN added. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2011_February_21. You're right that it isn't the biggest deal in the world, but I can't for the life of me understand why it isn't allowed to be fixed. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 05:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as synthesis or merge to Norwegian people#Historic migration out of Norway. The first sentence of the article is classic synthesis (i.e. putting two dicdef's together to arrive at new topic), and the rest of the article of ain't much better. I need to see evidence that more handful of reliable sources have made more than a passing reference to a "Norwegian dispora" before I'm inclined to believe this is a notable topic that deserves its own article. Yilloslime ^T_C 23:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Chacha gurl B (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

CgB's arguments claiming 'racism' are ludicrous, but since everyone will hopefully ignore it and not let it affect their judgement of the other arguments on both sides, I won't bother addressing it. Grr. Trying not to read it. Anarchangel (talk) 09:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It pretty much needs a rename. There just is not enough scholarly use of the title as it currently exists. And it is going to be pretty hard to come up with a name that isn't 10 words long. But the subject is almost empirically observable to be notable, and not just part of the emigration to the USA, either, but from as far back as the Viking expansion and the Swedish Empire. And also, the current title would make a good redirect, so killing it to remake the article later under a new name does not make sense either.

There are some absurd, upside down, opposite-day arguments against the RFC on the other AfD. 'People who make RFCs should have more patience' (no one usually bothers waiting for people to show up to RFCs; consequently AFDs that should have been RFCs are continually nominated). 'AfDs should be allowed to run their course to not interrupt the discussion about the articles' (RFCs are the proper place for discuss the content of articles; AfDs should only be discussions about titles that are (currently) impossible to make good articles out of). 'Letting people at AfD know about the RFCs is preventing people having a centralized discussion' (self explanatory: the RFC is all in one place, letting everyone know means everyone can join it all in one place). Pre-emptively adding arguments against. Anarchangel (talk) 09:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• speedy keep. If you have a better title under WP:NAME, suggest a move. I am aware that the term "diaspora" sees excessive use on Wikipedia. "Expatriate community" may be better. So, by all means move this to Norwegian expatriates or Norwegian expatriate community or something, but don't submit stuff to AfD that aren't AfDs. --dab (𒁳) 20:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. I agree with User:Yilloslime's suggestion to "delete as synthesis or merge to Norwegian people#Historic migration out of Norway. The first sentence of the article is classic synthesis (i.e. putting two dicdef's ...". There's no evidence here of a classic "diaspora", so specifically it is better to simply delete. Merge any modicum of different info here to the "Historic migration out of Norway section" of the "Norwegian people" article, but then please simply delete this with no redirect. --doncram 22:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Which part of "the movement, migration, or scattering of a people away from an established or ancestral homeland" is a synthesis when applied to Norway? WP:SYN says: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." Is it an original thought that Norwegians are people? Or that they migrated away from Norway? What in the definition of a diaspora makes it a synthesis when combined with Norwegians and not the other 244 peoples in Category:Diaspora. What makes Norwegians the exception? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  "Norwegian diaspora" is a coined, artificial, overly dramatic term. You are quoting one dictionary definition of diaspora, but the Jewish one comes first in a couple dictionaries that i looked at, and the term diaspora otherwise seems to me to best describe involuntary, forced dispersions of a people. It is grandstanding to assert implicitly that Norway had that. Probably is a misapplication of term diaspora to 235 or 240 or so of the other ones you assert the term might apply to, also. Let's deal with this one first, where diaspora in common understanding of the term does not apply. Merge and delete the incorrect, coined redirect, so, technically, DELETE.--doncram 14:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  nobody disputes that there are Norwegian expatriates. The issue just seems to be that the term "Norwegian diaspora" does not happen to be applied to them. This can be remedied by a simple suggestion for a page move. I have no idea why this is even being discussed on AfD. The cause of the problem is that we have a category named Category:Diasporas, with lots of articles titled "$NATIONAL diaspora", so that this has become something of an on-wiki terminological magnet. It would be preferable to rename the "diasporas" category to "expatriate communities" or something. Again, this has nothing to do with deletion criteria, only with WP:NAME.

  It is, however, not true that the term "Norwegian diaspora" is of on-wiki coinage. It is found in publications from 1986, 1980, 1973 and 1960. A single google search would have saved the submitter of this AfD from the embarassment of looking like a fool. The term "Norwegian expatriates" only gives marginally more hits[16]. Nevertheless, a modest suggestion to move the page to Norwegian diaspora could have been a constructive contribution. Now can we please close down this thread and send interested parties to discuss wherever it is the page should reside on actual article talkpages? --dab (𒁳) 11:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason we are voting on this at AFD is that our friend R:A:N: has maintained throughout that it is a question of whether the topic is notable - not a question about the current articles title. So we are basically voting on whether the topic "Norwegian diaspora" is notable enough to have an article in it. As you realize the topic isn't notable, whereas the topic of Norwegian expatriate communities is. ·Maunus·ƛ· 11:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but perhaps we can move beyond that now. I'm realizing now that I've been stuck arguing against RAN and co. while the POVs presented here by others who think the entry should be kept have been of a different, much more reasonable sort. Initially I think it was right to oppose RAN's recreation of this page, and I think it is still reasonable to oppose the way that he and a couple of others want to apply the term "diaspora", but is that really about keeping or deleting the present content anymore? I'm not sure it is. I've changed my vote to one of indifference, as long as we can discuss a name change.Griswaldo (talk) 12:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Dab. "Norwegian immigrant community" does much better than either. Essentially I think you are correct. Someone needs to close the AfD so we can move on to the name discussion.Griswaldo (talk) 11:43, 4 March 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.

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opal Minded (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable company (do we cover every opal company with its own boutique?). Speedy declined, presumably on the basis of the newspaper cites. Miracle Pen (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's not just a company. They have established a national museum.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 22:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —BurtAlert (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Opening a museum does not qualify a company for notability. It's also a self-promo by a SPA. Miracle Pen (talk) 07:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete spammy article on a non-notable shop. The article's creator states that they are married to the shop's owner and the available sources are about the family, not the shop. Nick-D (talk) 03:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Didn't think it was notable back in June when I tagged it as such, nothing seems to have improved since then. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The-Pope (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- Simply an advertisement poorly disguised as an article. This article is an attempt to create the illusion of notability. Frankly, there are too many articles like this. --MJHankel (talk) 15:12, 28 February 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.

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 withdrawn by nom here. lifebaka++ 20:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Frontier Boys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I can't find any claims of notability from reliable sources. The film's creator does not appear notable, either. ceranthor 20:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting - i'm not familiar with the requirements for film "notability." thoughts? are new independent films notable? --Ericn9 (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that WP:NOTFILM would be helpful to read. ceranthor 21:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just looking that over. Seems like the only case for notability at this point is the acting role of Rebecca St. James as the film is already mentioned on her page. --Ericn9 (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second "notable person with a major role" (paraphrasing WP:NOTFILM) is Big Kenny --Ericn9 (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having notable persons in the film might help, but what is required to meet WP:Notability (film) is to have the film written about and covered in multiple independent secondary sources. I have just given your article some major tweaks and added such sources. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- JN466 21:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• How about a Speedy Delete as a copyvio of http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1613056/plotsummary ? It says © at the bottom of the page there... Peridon (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC) dealt with. Peridon (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  We have permission to use the plot summary from Frontier Boys Films, the owners of the copyright. One of the ways to confirm this is emailing the official press contact anisa@frontierboys.com --Ericn9 (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  You have to do it by copyright release - easier to rewrite in fresh words... Peridon (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Plot synopsis re-written --Ericn9 (talk) 23:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This indicates coverage. Is it not enough to indicate notability? Erik (talk | contribs) 21:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  At a quick look, no. How reliable is mlive? BTW the IMDb article that this is copied from isn't reliable - being written by The Frontier Boys. This copyright violation has to be addressed before notability need be discussed. Peridon (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  As Erik noted below, the Mlive link was to a reprint of an article from Grand Rapids Press... so it qualifies as a proper and inpependent secondary source per WP:RS. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I removed the plot summary. The domain mlive.com just aggregates news articles from different newspapers. For example, this was published in The Grand Rapids Press last November. It is just republished on that website. Same for the other articles. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Based on the WP:C guidelines, I believe we have confirmed that we have permission to use the copy-written text, are we ok to add it back in? A plot summary is helpful in an article about a film. --Ericn9 (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC) re-written instead --Ericn9 (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Below an edit window, you will find blue things. Those tell you what's what, but WP:COPYRIGHT may be easier to understand... (May be...) Peridon (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per closing on WP:NF through WP:GNG. Adding to the article now... sources found by Erik and some found by me, such as Holland Sentinel[17] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per RS coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with thanks to Ericn9 for listening and doing a rewrite (unlike so many), and to MichaelQSchmidt for another good job of rescue. Looks much better. Not my sort of film (I prefer Ice Age and Ratatouille), but a good article. Peridon (talk) 11:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per coverage indicating notability. It's no blockbuster film, but it has a reputation in Michigan at least. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:15, 22 February 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.

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The Edelstam prize" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails the general notability guidelines. No reliable sources for verification. (Author contested prod) OSborn ^arf_contribs. 20:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Title note I moved the page to Edelstam prize by accident, and then moved it to its current title, Edelstam Prize. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 17:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- JN466 20:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- JN466 21:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- JN466 21:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Edelstam is notable. This Prize ought to be notable, but I can't find anything much reference-wise. This puzzles me. I've not yet sorted out what the Swedish for 'prize' is in this context, but when I do, I'll check again on Swedish sources. Peridon (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Edelstampriset - it's there in the foundation's page that is linked to in the article. I don't see much: it looks as if it has yet to be awarded?? Yngvadottir (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I thought that was it, but there's so little available for it that I wondered... According to http://www.realtid.se/ArticlePages/200909/14/20090914085214_Realtid148/20090914085214_Realtid148.dbp.asp they were still talking about setting it up in 2009, and the article mentions no names for people receiving the award. edelstampriset.com contains no content. All in all, there's more in this article than I can find on Google. Both the references are to do with Edelstam personally, not the prize. If the author or anyone can come up with evidence that it's been awarded, it would help. Peridon (talk) 14:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment somebody should take a look at that page, it's main author is adding interwiki links (and even Persondata) which looks like they're for Edelstam himself, not the prize. I suppose those should be removed? OSborn ^arf_contribs. 21:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I've looked around for Edelstampris as well as Edelstampriset and other than the few and substantially similar 2009 mentions and the stuff on the foundation's own site, I can't find anything but a 3-line note on a page aggregating info about the Uruguayan Embassy in Stockholm and blog entries giving the same information, that all from October 2010. And a hit on Google Books for a non-previewable journal that is likely an indexing error. Nothing in reliable independent sources. So it just isn't notable - yet. The article can be recreated after it achieves notability, which will likely be after someone is honored with the prize. --Yngvadottir (talk) 08:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, mostly per Yngvadottir. A prize can't be notable until it's awarded. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 20:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my comments above and Yngvadottir. Nothing else found worth reporting. Peridon (talk) 10:55, 24 February 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.

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. Although I disagree with the statement at the bottom that there is an "overwhelming" consensus, (not a vote and all that) there is a rough consensus to keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Black Golden Globe Award winners and nominees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Aside from the fact that the article has been tagged as referenceless since March 2008 (that's 3 years), I don't believe there is any reason whatsoever to have an article which is a CONTENT FORK of the original Golden Globe awards article. The sole difference is that this article is based on all the black nominees and I find that highly trivial and unnecessary. All the black nominees are listed in their awards' appropriate article. There is no need to single them out here. Feedback ^☎ 20:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC) Feedback ^☎ 20:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- JN466 20:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- JN466 20:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- JN466 20:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a non-notable "intersection" topic. See the highly relevant WP:OVERCAT: "Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African American musicians, should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right." Jonathanwallace (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OCAT only applies to categories, not lists in article space. postdlf (talk) 12:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • However WP:NOTDIR#7 can apply to lists, and makes pretty much the same point. Bulldog123 13:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:NOTDIR#7 is far less specific; "nonencyclopedic cross-categorization" is a rather indeterminate phrase that we must apply anew with each AFD. It really doesn't help us here because everyone still has to argue why this particular cross-categorization is or isn't nonencyclopedic. postdlf (talk) 00:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is there anything we can actually write about black people and the Golden Globes besides that both things exist and intersect? Has there ever been out-right racism at the Golden Globes or have black nominees ever been treated differently? If no, then how can we say it's a "cultural phenomenon?" Bulldog123 06:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Apparently this was created as trivia, but it isn't quite as "non-notable" a topic as one might think. However, even the article's contributors seem to have failed to notice how damn few black Golden Globe nominees there have actually been over the years. The reasons for this aren't racism in the foreign press reporters (nor for the Academy Awards either). But it's no secret that there are relatively few major roles for African-American actors in film and television, and even fewer for black actresses. Honestly-- five nominations per year per category, and only 7 or 8 black actresses have ever been nominated in the last fifty years for best actress in either drama or comedy? What's that work out to, 2 percent? One nomination for a black director over the years? Two nominations for a black screenwriter? Out of all the nominations since 1943? However, if the film and TV fans who maintain the article have somehow missed that, I don't hold out much hope that the article would ever have meaningful context. I'm a (middle-aged) white guy, and I would wager that all of this article's contributors fit the definition of the stereotypical Wikipedian. Mandsford 01:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A few years ago, List of black Academy Award winners and nominees was at AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Black Academy Award winners and nominees). It was kept, in part, because there were sources that discuss the issue of black people being or not being nominated for the Oscars. (For some more recent examples, see [18], [19], [20], [21].) I haven't been able to find similar coverage of the issue of black people being or not being nominated for Golden Globes. That is not because of a lack of interest in the standing of African Americans in Hollywood, but because the Golden Globes are not that significant as an indicator of that. They are mostly the subject of public interest as a precursor to the Oscars, not as an end in themselves. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I note that some sources have been added to the article, the majority of them appear to refer to the Golden Globes only incidentally, sometimes only in a single sentence. This level of media coverage is not even close to the level of media coverage discussing the nominations, or lack of nominations, for black people at the Oscars. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Per Mandsford. And the refs discoverable in the simplest of google searches, which reflect the strong notability of the intersection. On a side note -- the lead point in the nomination is irrelevant to the issue of whether an article should be AfD'd or not. The focus is on whether coverage exists, not on whether it is reflected in the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole idea of this article is to have a trivial collection (WP:CRUFT) of information that is already in each awards' articles (WP:Content forking). If you think an article about few black nominees should exist, then you can go ahead and create an article that debates the issue and provides many sources that speak about the controversy (if there is one). However, a "list" of black winners is definitely non-notable wether the number of nominations is an issue or not. Feedback ^☎ 20:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and WP:OCAT - unless the intersection is one of a culturally distinct phenomenon (not merely one reported here and there in external sources) the crossover should not exist. There is nothing that distinguishes the Golden Globes and African Americans as notable topics to intersect. That this may interest a select minority seeking examples of famous African American actors is not enough to consider it "encyclopedic." Wikipedia is not for everything. Bulldog123 03:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did you write "Strong Keep" in your edit summary? 04:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• Delete

1. There is no such thing as the "Black Golden Globe Awards", there's only the regular one. Unless Black became a proper noun all of a sudden this page is about a non-existent award. (If kept should be moved to List of black Golden Globe Award winners and nominees)
2. Pointless racial segregation. Black people have been winning and nominated for decades.
3. Nominations are not notable for there own articles, see the various lists with awards and lack of lists about nominations. Nominations go on the actors and the film articles, it does not warrant its own article. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 14:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: User:Epeefleche is going around adding this as a "See also" link on a series of articles. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 14:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which, frankly, should be immediately reverted... since doing so treats this list like a bio-specific category. Bulldog123 13:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Epeefleche (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article has good references now which demonstrate the notability of the topic. There seem to be plenty of other similar articles in Category:African-American culture and the work done here will complement them nicely. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Bulldog123 reasons above.--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per Bulldog123. This is not a case like the oscars or presidential candidates (African American candidates for President of the United States ) where having black participants was considered to be a major game changer. Unlike the others, this wasn't considered a significant topic of civil rights or something that brought about major change.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Even though I feel its stupid for people to separate themselves from their fellow human beings by the category of race for any reason, this does in fact get ample news coverage. They have news sources that specifically cover anything dealing with blacks, and the mainstream media even mentions race at times. So surely coverage exist. Lot of results to search through when I search for "African American" AND "Golden Globe award" and some results are not viewable without paying first. [22] If you search for the word "black" then even more results appear. Dream Focus 08:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article is now well referenced to a significant number of substantial reliable sources. In my opinion this is an acceptable content fork. Like it or not, there has been a considerable amount written about the neglect of black actors/actresses with major awards within the entertainment industry in the United States. The Oscars of course has received the most attention, but similar press coverage can be found on all the other major awards (Grammys, Emmys, Tonys, etc.) This list reflects that interest and organizes the Golden Globe winners content accordingly. There will be readers coming to wikipedia for this sort of information and there are reliable sources verifying this content. I see no valid reason to delete this useful list.4meter4 (talk) 11:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Like it or not, there has been a considerable amount written about the neglect of black actors/actresses with major awards within the entertainment industry in the United States Right... but how is this not a WP:OR-ish reason for keeping the list? We don't create lists to make points about the Hollywood Foreign Press Association's "neglect" of African Americans. Bulldog123 12:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is this original research? There is no original synthesis and similar lists have been published elsewhere, such as here. I can't see in what way OR applies to this particular article. If anything you seem to be objecting to the point of view of the article, which really isn't an AFD issue and should be sorted out on the article's talk page. The issue here is notability. Fact, other notable sources have published similar lists. Multiple reliable references support the list's content. Notability is clearly established per the criteria at WP:N. Best.4meter4 (talk) 12:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes because we're judging whether or not this is an irrelevant intersection. I don't see the external refs that comment on the relevance of the intersection, because it needs to be "...in some way a culturally significant phenomenon." Where does it say that Golden Globes and African Americans together form something "culturally significant?" Okay, you found the list published somewhere... well, a lot of places publish similar lists intersecting award winners of various backgrounds (Irish Echo, for example)... it doesn't meant they're all suitable for wikipedia. Bulldog123 13:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've already given a well reasoned arguement that satisfies the criteria of WP:N. Your need for someone to demonstrate "the relevance of the intersection" is frankly a red herring arguement and is tantamount to Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. However, the answer to your question should be obvious. The fact that similar lists have been included in published works on the history of African-Americans in cinema (example given in my comment above) should be enough to demonstrate the relevance of the two topics. The source given wasn't just a random newspaper article, but a comprehensive 377 page book which analyzes cinema in the United States from the perspective of African-American history. Reguardless, you have yet to present a valid reason based on WP:N policy that this articles should be deleted. Best.4meter4 (talk) 13:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've already stated why this article should be deleted and that's because it's a cross-categorization of two disparate things (Golden Globes, black people) and not a "culturally distinct phenomenon" documented by external sources. I don't see how you can buy the argument that "because the list is published, it must mean the intersection is worthy of its own topic article African Americans and the Golden Globes." If you consider relevance to be a red herring, then bring the issue up at the talk page for WP:NOT -- maybe you can alter WP:NOTDIR where it says this type of combination is not notable. The article that you are !voting to keep is African Americans in cinema, not African Americans & The Golden Globes. Bulldog123 13:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I think the fact that such lists have been published in respectable works on African-Americans in cinema proves that this isn't random cross-categorization. Best.4meter4 (talk) 13:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so List of left-handed actors would also be legitimate per this published list of left-handed actors? Bulldog123 13:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or List of movies that involve math per http://www.math.harvard.edu/~knill/mathmovies/ ?--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are hardly fair comparisons. This is vearing off into WP:Otherstuffexists territory and is not helpful. We could easily point to other groups who might make a reasonable list, like List of LGBT winners of the Golden Globes. Let's discuss this list solely based on its own merits and evidence. Best.4meter4 (talk) 13:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• keep per Mandsford. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and end this ridiculous assault on every ethnic category, list, and infobox entry in the project. Ethnicity is so incredibly tied to identity that to deny it in every place we can find on WP is a fool's errand. The fact is that people do have major perceptions of self and others based upon these qualities. A quick google scholar search for "ethnicity and identity" finds over 400,000 scholarly articles. Denial is original research - wishing that enthicity wasn't important to people's self-identity and their perceptions of others does not make it so. The sources talk about the topic as it is written, and we are ethically bound to follow the sources. This is clearly a notable topic, reliable sources cover it in sufficient detail to support the article, and we are obliged to keep and maintain it. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 14:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Denial is original research - wishing that enthicity wasn't important to people's self-identity and their perceptions of others does not make it so. I presume you meant to say "careers" or "ability to win awards"... because otherwise your !vote seems to be in the wrong AfD. This isn't an AfD for the deletion of all mentions of ethnicity on Wikipedia. Now, regarding the WP:OR remark... Not nearly as much original research as saying that ethnicity (something somebody can choose to identify with) is important to their chosen career (even when they make no indication of that). You can pick and choose what to call original research very easily these days. I just find it unusual to call the "negative" (or non-existence) of something WP:OR. It's kind of like saying it's original research that we don't call Martin van Buren a Dutch-American United States president. I mean... after all... he is. Bulldog123 18:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In reviewing the contributions of the above account, it appears to be an WP:SPA with very limited contributions that do not involve the removal of ethnic designations from WP. I see no reason to respond to trolling. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 19:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Garbage men are held in higher regard than those who produce the garbage. I'm okay with that. Since you're avoiding talking about the content of this article (instead choosing to talk about the nominator), I feel you have no legitimate reason for !keeping this particular list and so your two cents appear strangely irrelevant. Note that your claim "reliable sources cover it in sufficient detail" is a lot of horsesh*t. Not a single book or academic paper shows up on the subject, even though a book about the Oscars and African Americans shows up immediately. Retort? Bulldog123 06:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per 4meter4. The Golden Globes is obviously second fiddle to the Oscars, but it's still a very prominent award in American entertainment. The topic of African Americans in entertainment, and (under)recognition of their accomplishments in major awards, is far from a random or irrelevant intersection. Such lists are also a useful proxy for pointing out the most celebrated and prominent African Americans in film and television. I'd recommend a move to List of African American Golden Globe Award winners and nominees unless there's a compelling reason to keep the title as it is. postdlf (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the proposed move, not all the nominees listed here are American. At least one, Marianne Jean-Baptiste, is British. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Of all this series of nominations, this seems to me perhaps the most absurd. Acting is one of the fields in which ethnicity in all the different ways people designate it . A list --and a category also--is therefore appropriate. A list adds the possibility of specifiying some additional information, so should always supplement a category. DGG ( talk ) 15:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I also agree with User:Xeworlebi's point above that the capitalization of the title needs to be fixed. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 15:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If we allow this list to exist, then we should definitely open a "List of Caucasian Golden Globe winners and nominees". There's no difference. By allowing this article to exist and not the latter, you're not being neutral. This list has absolutely no impact or cultural significance. "African Americans in Cinema would be a very culturally important article, but that isn't what we're voting for here. We're voting to either keep or delete a very TRIVIAL list that doesn't need placement in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia after all, not a Golden Globes trivia handbook. Feedback ^☎ 16:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Give up. There is no policy-based (or common-sense-based) reason being used to keep this list (or similar such combinations). It's just one big, fat, nonsensical syllogism: A) Ethnicity can be defining B) People have jobs C) Therefore ethnicity is a defining factor in people's jobs. Bulldog123 18:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A notable, encyclopedic topic backed by dozens of reliable and verifiable sources. This is what lists are for. Alansohn (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per outstanding improvements by editor Epeefleche. The ample references specifically about black people in the performing arts show that this sort of list is noteable and doesnt have to be OR. Dream is of course right that its a shame some choose to separate themselves from their brothers and sisters on grounds of race, but its a part of mainstream educational thinking that some members of minority groups benefit by being inspired with role models of their own ethnicity, so this sort of list is very valuable. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All those references talk about African Americans and cinema which we all know is a very important cultural topic, but how is African Americans and the Golden Globes SPECIFICALLY important enough for its own article? Again, we're voting on wether this article should exist, not "The African American Struggle in the Performing Arts". It seems to me that you don't even know what you're voting for. Feedback ^☎ 20:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The opening text of the article and the many refs that are in it, some of which are discussed above, are replete with such discussion of the intersection. Many of the !votes here, the majority of which are to keep the article, point to and/or discuss that.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment No one is arguing that race in acting has had an important history, just that race in the Golden Globes has never been a significant topic. This really would set a problematic precedent. Race in business has had an important history. Race in crime has had an important history. Should every award in a field that has been affected by race have lists split up by race? Should we have an article on "List of black rapists" "List of Asian drug dealers" or "List of white armed robbers" because race is an important issue in crime? Should the Mark Twain prize have a list for each race since race has been an important issue in comedy?--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point here is that multiple reliable independent sources, including academic publications and major news organizations, have discussed the Golden Globe Awards within the context of African-American History and race in general. Per wikipedia's notability guidelines, those multiple reliable sources are what confer notability on this topic. If and when your above examples also are supported by multiple substantial reliable sources, than feasibly such lists could be created. However, it is unlikely that the absurb examples you gave above would be supported by enough sources to ever pass WP:N. Stop using false comparisons please.4meter4 (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking through the sources, and race in the golden globes seems to be mentioned as either a tidbit in an article about a black person winning, or in the case of the book on blacks in cinema, just in an appendix. We could also find countless articles on, say, celebrities wearing a particular suit or brand of glasses, but we don't have "People who wear X." And don't say that couldn't be sourced, I guarantee I could find you a million people magazine articles about all the celebrities who have worn a particular dress best, or whatever.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

actually, I think we probably could have a list of "Notable film characters wearing clothing designed by Adrian" Some intersections are significant enough. DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I see no problem with list of black rapists. There are multiple reliable sources that document the link between race and rape... especially black on white rape. It seems way more relevant that the connection between the Hollywood Foreign Press Association's statue and race. Here's the first one on google [23]. And here's the cat: Category:Rapists_by_nationality Bulldog123 06:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a big difference there. Films with clothes by Adrian would be the equivalent of a filmography, something perfectly acceptable and encyclopedic, and totally different from the "who wore it best" kind of lists I was referring to.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above arguments. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per reasonable and policy based arguments for keeping and per improvements made since nomination. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos to User:Epeefleche for the work done on improving this article and putting this into context. Mandsford 12:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You realize that all User:Epeefleche did was add references right? He literally changed nothing of the actual content in the article. [24] Feedback ^☎ 14:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, to give him credit, I think he added all that worthless WP:TRIVIA at the top. Stuff like In 2009, when Black actor Tracy Morgan was awarded a Golden Globe, he joked: "I'm the face of post-racial America. Deal with it, Cate Blanchett.". Great. Instead of a random ethnicity/occupation list, we have a big repository of loosely-associated factoids with no order or logical flow. Yup, "kudos." Facepalm Bulldog123 16:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It's about time for this to be ruled on.. I hope it says, "the result was keepos" Mandsford 19:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tx. Agreed. The overwhelming consensus appears to be to keep, as I see it.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:48, 28 February 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.

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FC Bemina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not appear to be notable, no g/news hits. No reliable sources to verify with. Being used as spam by a user with an apparent COI. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 18:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- OSborn ^arf_contribs. 18:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- OSborn ^arf_contribs. 18:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:FOOTYN.--Sodabottle (talk) 14:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable club, fails WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 13:48, 23 February 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.

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. WP:CRYSTAL The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Development of Windows 8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unverifiable information. I don't consider the references given to be reliable sources, and the majority of the information presented is speculation or hearsay. I'm not saying there won't be a Windows 8 -- there probably will be (though potentially with a different name). But we simply don't have enough information right now to make a reasonable article out of it. This is precisely what WP:CRYSTAL talks about. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 16:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —BurtAlert (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Speculation sourced to unreliable blogs and the usual internet gossip forums does not make for an encylopaedic article. A redirect to History of Microsoft Windows#Windows 8 may be appropriate, but they is entirely insufficient reliable information at this stage for a standalone article. _wjemather^bigissue 16:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete exactly per Shirik. 123Hedgehog456 16:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete and Merge into History of Microsoft Windows#Windows 8 until the software itself is released per the three good editors above and SNOW. Wikicopter _{what i do} s + c cup|former 17:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Merge and Delete is not an acceptable deletion outcome per WP:MAD. (Edit histories for content must be retained.)

• There would be no content to merge anyway after removing everything (rumours and speculation) that can only be sourced to unreliable blogs and forums, so that is not really an issue. _wjemather^bigissue 08:27, 22 February 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.

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 PNG'd (delete). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomatic sales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article was originally written by someone apparently trying to plug Volvo's diplomatic sales (a more directly promotional article was removed). Now that I've removed the Volvo stuff from this one, what's left asserts no real notability and is unsourced, and I wonder if there's anything of encyclopedic importance here at all - there are lots of "discount sales" schemes for all sort of customers all over the place. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm unsure of the original editor's intention, but this is entirely uncited and doesn't demonstrate any notability. There may be an article in the subject of sales to diplomatic staff (I've no idea), but what's here doesn't give me any confidence. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nothing there that can be called an article. No notability. No content. No references.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 21:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all. No diplomatic immunity for this article. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:32, 23 February 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.

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. No prejustice against recreation if notability established in the future. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crowd games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

unreferenced, orphaned, original research. 2nd'd prod challenged by article creator. RadioFan (talk) 12:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I couldn't find third party coverage of the sports arena games the article describes, just a couple of press releases not establishing notability. Most uses of "crowd games" disclosed by Google refer to unrelated matters. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as one who endorsed the original PROD. --Teancum (talk) 15:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There might end up being some notability here, if it catches on - and, if so, we might revisit the issue. But there's no notability here, as yet. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Complete OR and trimming OR would leave an empty page. No media has reliably classified this as a genre as far as search results show. There are results, like this for example, but I doubt there's enough to pass notability border. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:02, 21 February 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.

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. J04n(talk page) 04:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voorschoten '97 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable amateur football club playing only in the second highest amateur league. Travelbird (talk) 12:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable club. This version as well as the Dutch version are poorly sourced (just 1 primary source). Jarkeld (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing notable about this club. Having a single former player who now plays professional does not incur notability (wp:INHERITED). I also removed the history section again, for it is a direct translation from the official website and thus a copyright violation. Yoenit (talk) 08:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Put the history section back in full. It is not a direct translation, I translated it myself. Vbruin (talk) 11:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A translation is a derivative work, so it remains a copyright violation. Rewrite the text in your own words if you want to use it. Yoenit (talk) 11:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will then. Vbruin (talk) 11:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm editing the History section to have a more neutral view point and editing out the less important points. Vbruin (talk) 11:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Great! unfortunately that does not adress the reason why the page was nominated for deletion: It does not appear to meet our guideline for inclusion, the general notability guideline. Yoenit (talk) 11:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - plays in the Hoofdklasse A, and is therefore eligible for the KNVB Cup - therefore meeting notability guidelines for clubs as determined by WP:FOOTBALL. Article needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 16:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Club plays at the fourth level of football in the Netherlands. Hardly a pub team. Number 57 09:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per GiantSnowman. - Berton (talk) 14:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per GiantSnowman. Their participation in the KNVB Cup is confirmed by a quick Gsearch.  Bettia  Talk  12:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep So can that notice be removed yet? Vbruin (talk) 01:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 7 days from the start of the AfD. I struck out your second keep. Just 1 per customer. Jarkeld (talk) 01:42, 27 February 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.

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 all. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 LBC United Football League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

It is not a notable league. Since this is a league within the Philippines, and having done a check, there is no league system/pyramid in the coutnry and therefore isn't the top flight and is just an 'isolated' league. It's also not overseen/governed by a recognized FA. Banana Fingers (talk) 11:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I am also nominating the following related pages because these are clubs that play in this league and they are not notable. The first four clubs listed are also recreations of previous articles (under different titles) that have been deleted via PROD due to failing notability and lack of coverage.

Kaya Futbol Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Philippine Navy FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Loyola ATR-KimEng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Air Force Rider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sunken Garden United (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lions FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Global Smartmatic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Green Archers United Futbol Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dolphins United (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Japan K-Line (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Banana Fingers (talk) 11:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep see comment here. Stu.W UK (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like I've said above, this league isn't governed by a recognized body. When I say 'recognized', they aren't members of of the Philippine Football Federation or any of its member associations such as the National Capital Region F.A.. So your comment that this league runs the highest, second highest and is the successor to the Filipino Premier League is incorrect. I believe it's also irrelevant if their official website states that they have aspirations to play in the AFC Champions. Banana Fingers (talk) 11:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the same thing, and a lot of the website is bereft of any sort of link to the PFF. Two things changed my mind though. One is that if you go here and look at the image under the word 'board', one of the images in the cycle is the logo of the PFF with the words 'The United Football League is sanctioned by the Philippine Football Federation' underneath. The second is that this article talks about players not being able to play for their country if playing in a league not recognised by FIFA. It also says that the captain of the filipino team plays for Kaya Futbol Club. Taken together I felt that was enough to persuade me they were , an official league. If you can point to something that contradicts this, I'm happy to change my mind. Considering the PFF's website is a pdf about tickets for a match earlier this month, I think it's safe to say it isn't easy to get clarity! Stu.W UK (talk) 12:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but that little photo underneath the word 'board' saying that they are sanction by the PFF... I'm not buying it. Surely if they were sanctioned/recognied by the PFF, the governing body of this league would at least be an associate member of the PFF. Heck, they should at least be a probationary member of the PFF, but no evidence is found regarding this. The group behind this league are the same ones who have put directly on their website that they intend to get recognized by the AFC so the clubs in their league could qualify for the AFC Champions League. For a league that's still very new and considering the level of Philippine football as a whole, that's some ambition they've got. And by saying they're sanctioned by the PFF would probably be their way of trying to show some credibility. At the end of the day, there is no evidence they are. Banana Fingers (talk) 14:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment. Regarding the part about players not being able to play for their country if playing in a league not recognized by FIFA... that has nothing to do with this. That's talking about the Philippines captain having the possibility of being barred for playing for the Philippines if he plays for a club in Indonesia "rogue league", the Indonesia Premier League. Banana Fingers (talk) 14:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I researched the team Sunken Garden United and found references in prominent Philippine newspapers. This team is associated with the University of the Philippines which is one of the top two or three universities in the Philippines (ie equivalent to Harvard or Yale or Oxford etc). My sense is it's a topic of growing importance in the Philippines (since "football" or what is called "soccer" in the US) is starting to catch on big in this country -- it's been only a decade or so, but enthusiasm is growing. There are references -- but there is a general unfamiliarity with Philippine newspapers and magazines by Wikipedians writing about this topic. If one of the teams is notable, then the league as a whole is surely notable; not sure about individual players though.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article about the League, plus the teams within the League, are not well done yet, but the fault isn't that the topic isn't notable; rather, they need substantial trimming and referencing.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment. About the criticism that the league isn't structured well -- there are published sources suggesting that it puts on a month-long annual tournament entitled World Cup Pilipinas here. The Philippine Securities & Exchange Commission registers teams as "athletic organizations"; there are corporate sponsors; imo, looks officially like a league.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"If one of the teams is notable, then the league as a whole is surely notable". This seems quite odd. One team is notable all of a sudden the entire league is? This "World Cup Pilipinas" has nothing to do with the United Football League. The Philippine Securities & Exchange Commission may register teams as "athletic organizations". It doesn't all the teams are actually registered. Banana Fingers (talk) 14:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, teams play in a league. If a particular team is notable, then wouldn't a much higher entity -- the league -- be notable as well? And aren't you applying a similar (top-down) logic: if a league isn't notable, then all the teams within the league aren't notable as well? I think they're all connected, and I think you'll agree. Plus I found numerous references (even more exist) for both the league as well as individual teams, suggesting that Philippine sportswriters, for prominent publications (Sun Star, Inquirer, Philippine Star), think these subjects are important enough to write about.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. The governing body of this league is independent (not a recognized body). Therefore it's like saying, I set up a competition/league (it would be a non-notable competition), and I was able to get a world renown team like Arsenal for example to play in it. It doesn't really make my competition notable. Banana Fingers (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as above, both Stu.W UK and Tomwsulcer have convinced me of the worth of these articles. GiantSnowman 14:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The league is only 4 years old, but notable and receives considerable national coverage in that part of the world. The teams have substantial sponsors. I don't believe editors should out-of-hand delete the Philippine national Air Force and Navy teams for being "non-notable". --UnicornTapestry (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Just had a look through the website of the Philippine Inquirer. A quick search reveals a number of articles, including this which states "sanctioned by the Philippine Football Federation and the National Capital Region Football Association, the tournament is organized by the Football Alliance and the United Football Club Association." There's also this, which describes it as "The country’s first ever professional, corporate-sponsored football league". Stu.W UK (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Sanctioned by the Philippine Football Federation....." That author probably just had a look at the league's website and saw that they're supposedly sanctioned by the PFF and concluded that they must also be sanctioned by the NCRFA? lol. Seriously. That's the same journalist who can't even give the public the correct name of the mother of Philippines international Neil Etheridge. Etheridge's mother's name is Melissa here, Melinda here, and Merlinda here. Banana Fingers (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment. "The country's first ever professional....." No it's not. Philippine football is still amateur. That journalist's line of thinking is, corporate sponsors = professional. Banana Fingers (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That same article explicitly refers to the "country’s first foray in play-for-pay football". Now you may argue whether that merits it being called professional or semi-professional, but I'd say it pretty much rules out the idea they're amateur. As for mocking the journalism of the paper this describes it as the most widely read, circulated and awarded newspaper in the Philippines. You may not consider the standard of Filipino journalism in English to be particularly high, but for establishing notability it's the best you're likely to find. Stu.W UK (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Stu.W UK (talk) 20:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here from early October 2010? (no date given), "It was also announced that the First Division clubs will be receiving much higher allowances this season...." Key word is 'allowances'. It's not wages or salaries. That doesn't make the club and especially the players semi-pro, let alone fully pro. Banana Fingers (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It says the clubs get allowances, not the players. I would read that as meaning they get more from the companies that back them or from a central league pot of money. The players get paid to play football, thus it isn't amateur. Or am I missing something? Stu.W UK (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The clubs get these allowances and then it would be up to the clubs how they allocate them to the players and to anyone else within club. Banana Fingers (talk) 07:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I was dismayed that you had to be asked to notify the original author of some of the articles and you didn't bother to notify the original author or major editors of this one (LBC) at all. Next time, please notify parties that might have an interest. Thank you. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Having just checked, I'll admit that I forgot about the creator of the article LBC United Football League and that is my bad, I apologize for that. But for everything else (the club aticles), it's the same author who created them all, and I did notify that person. Even before you did. I assumed it was the same user who created all these articles. Banana Fingers (talk) 07:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; that is eminently understandable. No problem, then. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all. Assuming the league is professional, which it probably is, that means the teams competing, the players playing and the seasons played are notable. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 02:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly your assumption is wrong. How can the likes of Philippine internationals Emelio Caligdong and Ian Araneta be full time footballers when they're active members within the Philippine Air Force? It's simple, they're not full time footballers therefore the players and the league isn't pro. Banana Fingers (talk) 09:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly they're not amateurs either since they're getting paid (no matter how their compensation is called). This is akin to European basketball leagues before FIBA allowed "professionals" to compete in their tournaments. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 11:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's like saying an amateur boxer who competes at the Olympics is counted as a professional because they're getting allowances from their boxing association/Olympic association. Banana Fingers (talk) 11:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And we have articles for them. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 12:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Question: I haven't read the guidelines of Wikiproject Football but isn't this article pass WP:GNG already? --Bluemask (talk) 10:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This doesn't have a green or blue check mark, but the relevant page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability states that:
    • For leagues:"All leagues that are a country's highest level are assumed notable."
    • For clubs: "All teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) are assumed to meet WP:N criteria."
      • The relevant clause is the one within the parenthesis.
  • Since there's probably no other football league that has a higher profile in the Philippines, this should satisfy that criterion. The article obviously passes WP:GNG, though.–HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 12:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it meets WP:GNG, and in its current, more referenced state I'd say it does, no other criteria matter Stu.W UK (talk) 12:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Article's subject passes WP:GNG, that in and of itself should be enough. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:41, 25 February 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.

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

South Moluccas national football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:N. This team has played twice ever, in an unnotable cup competition. Stu.W UK (talk) 11:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing on google news and only stuff from unpo itself and wikipedia on google. Original AfD was declined because the arguments in favour of deletion were weak. Both keep votes mentioned NF Board teams as though they were all equal. As this team has never played in an NF Board competition I fail to see the relevance. Stu.W UK (talk) 11:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.Stu.W UK (talk) 11:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability for this team. GiantSnowman 13:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No coverage in reliable sources, so there is no suggestion of notability and nothing to write an article with. I also don't see how a land that is not a nation can have a "national football team". BigDom talk 09:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A national team has to represent a nation. There is no nation of the South Moluccas, just a restive province of Indonesia that's played 2 games against other restive provinces. Bit like the Oz-Narnia Cup Final. Jaxsonjo (talk) 07:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addit- The UNPO Cup (Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organisation) has also been deleted. Surely this qualifies this page to be speedied. Jaxsonjo (talk) 00:28, 1 March 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.

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. Consensus seems to lean toward the notion that the ship isn't quite there yet in terms of notability. Juliancolton (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Le Pietre (yacht) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested PROD (as Le pietre yacht). Fails WP:GNG. It's just someone's yacht. It came third in a non-notable race. Wikipedia is not the place to tell the world about your yacht, however nice it is. Also nominating Le pietre yacht - duplicate of this page. Shirt58 (talk) 09:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The race IS notable and quite popular with those who know about wooden gulets. There is no page about it in wiki yet, but I am sure it will be here soon. On Wikipedia there are pages about other yachts and building companies, like Perini Navi or Aegean Yacht or Cobra yacht and many many others. If you intend to remove this page please remove similar pages as well. I agree that page Le pietre yacht is duplicated, it can be removed. But not this Le Pietre (yacht). 35m vessel is not someone's pet or house, it is a big yacht that deserves it's place in the yacht's list. The page is written according to all wiki's recommendations for writing about yachts Natalia Spatar (talk) 10:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The three articles you link are all about shipyards, not individual yachts. To show that it's notable, you need to find "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (see WP:Notability). At the moment, there's no evidence of that in the article. I'm trying to ignore the fact that it reads like one long advert. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with fire. This article is a putrid example of highjacking wikipedia for advertising. Lines like: fabulous space for entertaining are abundant throughout. I tagged the previous article with ((advert)), ((Primary sources)) and ((notability)). So far the author has contested a speedy; removed a prod and started a new article sans all of the tags I had placed. The article is also a photo gallery. Rewritten without the advertising slant this article would consist of one paragraph even ignoring the fact that it isn't notable to begin with. Brad (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article is little more than a sales brochure for this yacht, and is packed full of puffery. It is unreferenced and violates the neutral point of view. Do we want some rich guy to be able to brag, "My yacht is so spectacular that it has its own Wikipedia page!" I don't think so. Cullen328 (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Appears to be pure advertising. No references to reliable sources, but tons of adspeak. --NellieBly (talk) 00:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This may be a yacht, but it is not a small pleasure craft. At 135 GT, it is an ocean-going vessel and thus notable. Agree that the article needs a lot of promotional material culled, but that is not a reason to delete. WP:SHIPS notified of discussion. Mjroots (talk) 06:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable. Maybe one day it will be. For now, put it on here: List of large sailing yachts. —Diiscool (talk) 14:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as Mjroots points out, few yachts make it to this size (qualifying for WP:SHIPS, even!). This said, the article is chock full of peacocks and Spam Vikings, and there appears to be no significant coverage of the ship aside from a few Internet links. If the ship had won the Bodrum Cup race, I'd be a bit more sympathetic, but it didn't, and there is no evidence of any form of notability beyond WP:ITEXISTS and the initial, non-bolded-keep's editor's assertion that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. No prejustice against recreation sans spamminess if additional reliable sources allow for the proving of notability in the future. (as a note, given the tone of the article, I'm amazed this got AfD'd instead of G11'd...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Trimmed to improve WP:NPOV, added inline cites. For those who know sailboats, the fact that large, chunky wooden motorsailers like this are being finished out as luxury yachts is somewhat surprising, and certainly makes me take note. The Gulet appears to be an indigenous Turkish development in sailing vessel design, and I suggest that we keep a few examples of vessels like this for purposes of countering systematic bias WP:WORLDVIEW. My guess is that most press coverage of this vessel would be in Turkish, given where it is based, but I can't read the Turkish on the web sites. Also, what Mjroots said: this is a rather large, oceangoing wooden sailing vessel, capable of carrying passengers for hire. It has much more functional hull lines (clearly aimed at commercial purposes of maximizing passenger space) than is typical of luxury sailing yachts. So far, despite the question of limits on oil reserves, we are only getting a very few vessels like this built in the 21st century. Djembayz (talk) 05:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps before we spend time creating and cleaning up these advertisements for individual gulets, we should devote energy to cleaning up the basic Gulet article which does not meet our high standards at present. —Diiscool (talk) 13:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Could someone here join in and enlist some help on Gulet from WikiProject Turkey, where we might find more language expertise? Djembayz (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although the article is improved in the sense that overtly promotional language has been removed, the fundamental problem remains. All the information in the article except the raw race results come from a source that was involved in building the yacht. There is no evidence so far of notability, namely coverage in multiple reliable, secondary sources independent of the topic that discuss this yacht in depth. Lacking that proven notability, the article simply doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whilst secondary sources are preferred, the is not rule that says we cannot use primary sources in the absence of these. This source is a secondary source, but possibly not a WP:RS, although it does give much useful info for further research. Mjroots (talk) 12:08, 28 February 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.

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 already deleted. Some Wiki Editor (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geopbyte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Proposed name for a data storage space unit. Has not been widely accepted, nor is there any machine available with such amount of data space. The article was speedily deleted twice on request by other editors - I thought I'd give this an AfD to settle the matter. Travelbird (talk) 09:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Neologism; cited sources are not reliable. Feezo (Talk) 09:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sources are not reliable (one random "what is" page and two forum links); the last link does not mention the term. Could not turn up anything reliable in modern textbooks or papers; note there is an unleated biology term which could confuse searches. Kuru (talk) 14:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete under WP:CSD#G5 (created by blocked user) since it was created by Mr ArticleEditor (talk · contribs), a sock of SirEpicBob (talk · contribs). (Article already tagged for speedy.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 21 February 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.

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Arnold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Coach of a non-professional team, only coverage in a local newspaper and college related source. Travelbird (talk) 09:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:ATH and WP:NSPORT. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete High school coaches are normally not considered notable, and I see no indication that the individual meets notability standards through WP:GNG or any other measure.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:25, 22 February 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.