Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Asian people

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 No consensus, defaulting to Keep. ELIMINATORJR 13:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of British Asian people

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

These are all I have time for right now. I'll be back (with a separate AFD)...

Separated articles for each race of people that reside in a particular country are an unmaintainable goal. There are dozens if not hundreds of ethnic groups and about 200 countries in the world. The mathematics of maintains articles of questionable use for all of them are impossible. They also tend to become dumping grounds for WP:COI redlinks. I will add a separate AFD for articles that list people by country ASAP. - Richfife 15:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per over categorization of racial/national intersections. Corpx 15:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It goes too far to be meaningful.--Danaman5 16:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Corpx. Onnaghar ^{tl | co} 16:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete for the same reason as all other similar lists: the inclusion criterion is horribly subjective (WP:NOR) and such a list serves no useful purpose (WP:NOT#DIR). EyeSerene^TALK 17:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - These specific lists are there for a reason - Asian, African and Caribbean people have all featured heavily in British history thanks to the rise and fall of the British Empire and the movements of peoples between different parts of it, while many Jewish people have for the past several centuries settled and integrated in Britain while fleeing persecution in other parts of Europe. These lists are not arbitrary but a reflection of the influence these people have had in British history. Questions of redlinks and maintenance are important, but should be answered by cleanup not nominating for AfD. Qwghlm 17:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - there are more specific and useful categories and lists and this one is just a indiscriminate collection of information .--Svetovid 19:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all "These are all I have time for right now. I'll be back (with a separate AFD)..." Oh, is it tea time? Jolly good. No need to hurry on our account. The difference between Americans and British people is that most of us are descended from immigrants, whereas you guys still have that "There goes the neighborhood" feeling about newcomers. Easy for us to say, though... you kept most of your original inhabitants. Mandsford 20:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an argument in there? I'm not getting paid to edit Wikipedia. Plus I've already been accused of racism for not being conclusive. I can't fix them all at the same time. I only have 10 fingers. - Richfife 21:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? The rest of us have 16 fingers, and we all get monthly checks of $200 for editing Wikipedia... Mandsford 21:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it civil please... even in jest ;) No-one is disputing that ethnic origin and cultural roots are important, but producing a list like this is not the best way to go. Many of these people are redlinked (no article=possibly non-notable?), and we Brits are just as much a mongerel race as everyone else (from the Celts through various European migrations/invasions to current immigration). Go back far enough, and most of us are descended from immigrants too. There have been documented Asian/Jewish/Black/etc communities in Britain for centuries... which leads to my main objection: who qualifies for inclusion on such a list, and how do we decide? If it's important to a person's identity, it belongs in their article (if they have one). EyeSerene^TALK 21:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Categories, and the upcoming category intersection will make these lists redundant and, in fact, burdensome (with the sourcing pressures). That and the fact that I feel a lot of these "British" ethnic categories are inching on original-research and redefinition. Their census and records are completely different from America's, and in some cases, ethnicity doesn't even seem to play as big a role. Bulldog123 05:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- same as with the -Americans. There is no policy against this sort of article, and no reason to delete them all. The nom argues that the there would be too many articles, but 100 ethnic groups and 200 countries is only --but that is only 20,000, and a NOT PAPER encyclopedia could handle even that. It's less than 1% of the total number of articles in enWP. .But not all will be of equal importance, so lets keep the important ones, and delete any really unimportant ones that have gotten created--just a for other types of articles. based on the content, the ones listed seem important. Maybe WPedians are sensible after all and simple havent done the unimportant ones & there's nothing to delete. Being sensible, we know that ethnicity and nationality are important, separately and in combination. As for who belongs, it's an editing question. if we dont have sources, we don't include. DGG (talk) 06:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all If the magical intersections ever appear, then and only then can they be deleted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find these lists useful for navigating subcultures. They do no harm. QueenAdelaide 06:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)— QueenAdelaide (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: This user's primary contribution seems to be spamming links to the deleted list List of entertainers related to academics in various articles[reply]
Keep. Per QueenAdelaide Uranometria 21:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Especially "Black Britons" is absurd there is no such thing as a black briton. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 08:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the terms Black British and Black Briton are used [1]. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Questionable sources should only be used in their article. Ethnicity should only be in its own article. ---^DarkTea © 08:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should be better in categories and maybe per profession. i.e British Asian Journalists, British Asian Athletes, etc.--JForget 00:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Lists serve a very different function to Categories. Surely the usefulness of these lists is more important than how easy or hard it is to MANAGE/MAINTAIN them. Wikipedia should be user-orientated rather than "editor"-orientated. The red links are less to do with notability than the fact that these communities tends to be less comuputer literated or have less access to internet. Ethnic minorities suffer greatly by the lack of research and representation in other media. This offer a great opportunity to record the development of these under-represented communities. Chineseartlover 03:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC) — Chineseartlover (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep all these lists serve a legitimate function that a category cannot serve; it can be soured.--Sefringle^Talk 04:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —Sefringle^Talk 04:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is plenty of discussion about British Asians, so it is a notable topic. I am amazed by the assertion that there are no black Britons. I see them every day. They are tabulated in the 2001 Census under the name "black British" - did the census people make them up?--Bedivere 21:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep however inconcise, disparate and possibly divisive such decriptions and lists may be, such terms are commonly used in the media, racial diversity surveys on Government forms etc unless Wikipedia insists on divorcing itself from the rest of the world in the terms it uses,such articles have a place.(sorry forgot to sign again)KTo288 21:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per the nominator, this is why we have categories. USE THEM. Burntsauce 21:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely categories serve a completely different function to lists? Categories cannot be annotated or sourced. Categories are there to link articles together and find things that have connections. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm pretty sure we all know what the difference between a list and a category is. The only problem here is these lists, according to some people, abuse list privileges, so to speak. Bulldog123 03:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is perfectly reasonable to show how different ethnic or religious minorities have succeeded in Britain. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- These lists are merely extensions of the main articles for those ethnic groups which would be too large if they included the information in the lists- see articles in this category:Category:Ethnic_groups_in_the_United_Kingdom such as Black British, Caribbean British, British Asian, British Jews, French_people_in_the_United_Kingdom, Britalian etc. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and any similar which may be nominated. As pointed out above, do not confuse purpose of lists with that of categories. Furthermore, the definitions involved are perfectly valid and are reflected in UK censuses/common usage/ common sense, and/or combinations of these.--Smerus 09:00, 24 August 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.