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.
Comment Incidentally, I just raised a move request on this page at WP:RM to put it at a better title like Immigration from Malaysia to the United States or something, since the current title violates WP:NEO. I also suspect the topic itself may also be non-notable in the sense of not having any non-trivial coverage in reliable sources; (most emigrants from Malaysia head to HK, Taiwan, or Australia) but I don't see any harm in letting this run the full five days to see if someone gets last-minute inspiration to expand it. cab04:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DICT but this article is not a case of WP:NEO. A common-sense combination of two terms is not automatically a neologism. There is an established English-language convention in these cases of giving titles to individuals with multiple group affiliations--in this case, ethnic/national origin and citizenship (e.g., Irish Americans). Black Falcon07:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, redirect to Asian Americans. If and when someone wants to create a longer article on this, they can do so. But in the meanwhile, I think the page ought to redirect to "Asian Americans" (of which Malaysian Americans are a subset) as I find it very conceivable that someone would search for "Malaysian Americans". I may change my vote to keep if content is added to the article. Black Falcon07:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of immigrants from multiethnic states, it's a lot more common to refer to them using their ethnic origin (e.g. Hmong American, Uyghur American) rather than their national origin, and most immigrants from such states identify based on their ethnicity rather than their former/ancestral nationality. The most prominent historical example of this: immigrants from the USSR were virtually never referred to as "Soviet Americans" or the like, but instead as Russian Americans, Kazakh Americans, Estonian Americans, etc. The title "Malaysian American" is a problematic neologism because it implies a group identity that probably doesn't exist in the first place (and to which no reliable sources attest); it's probably a mistake to call a group of people by a name with which they themselves wouldn't primarily identify. cab07:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but there are also counter-examples. For example, I do not imagine anyone would identify as a Tutsi, Hutu, or Twa American, but instead a Rwandan or Burundian American. Likewise, Filipino American is used instead of Tagalog American and Bolivian American in the place of Aymaran American. Despite that, I still do not think "Malaysian American" or "Rwandan/Filipino/Bolivian American" are neologisms as they are simply combinations of two common identities for which an English-language convention exists (in this case, nationality/country of origin followed by current citizenship). I view "Malaysian American" as a categorization rather than a particular group identity that individuals may or may not adopt. Oh, and as you noted, detemplate from ((Asian Americans)). Cheers, Black Falcon16:52, 5 February 2007 (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.