Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:25, 9 December 2008

Croatian British

Croatian British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

British Serbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Macedonians in Britain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No assertion of notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Keep one, Delete the other; or maybe the other way around. If the only standard was whether the articles prove that the topic is "notable", then I suppose we could apply some arbitrary definition of how many people gotta be in a group to be notable. I've decided that it has to be "at least 7,000" and I'm afraid that the Croatians have only 6,992 according to their article, so they just miss out. However, most topics are potentially notable, and the question then comes down to whether an article meets Misplaced Pages standards for content, sourcing, etc.; at the moment, the "British Serbs" article shows that there is a substantial community that has a presence in the United Kingdom, while the Croatian British article is the census-data-in-a-can piece that has nothing to say. The British Serbs article should be kept. If the other article can be beefed up, then I might be inclined to say keep for that as well. At the moment, however, no. Mandsford (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • How about the Macedonians one? Cordless Larry (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say "Weak delete" on that one. Although it might be brought up to code, its source seems to be limited to www.macedonians.co.uk, which is more of what we call in the U.S. a "community calendar" -- picnics, parties, meet Ms. Soandso. Although it has a "news section", the news isn't about Macedonians in Britain; it appears to be what's going on "back home". Mandsford (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Macedonians in Britain and Croatian British, Keep British Serbs. The usual barrage of searches "Fooian (s/community/people/etc.) in (the United Kingdom/etc.)" brings up a number of reliable sources for Serbs , but none for the other two, just a few forum posts, blogs, and the like, so I don't see any possibility that they could be beefed up. cab (talk) 08:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, the articles can always be improved and added to in the future. If you insist on deleting pages because they are "uninformative" then there are many other groups in Britian such as Bulgarians, Vincentians etc. PMK1 (talk) 12:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I didn't say that the articles are "uninformative". I said that I don't think they are notable. And the fact that other articles exist doesn't mean that these should. Articles should be considered on their individual merits. Besides, quite a few similar articles have been deleted recently, such as Indonesian British and several others here. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
    • How notable is notable? 1000 people, 2000 people, 3000 people? If there is enough information on the topic the notability is easily questioned. PMK1 (talk) 20:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I should have said that I don't think that the articles assert notability. I don't think there's a magic size at which groups become notable, but there needs to be some proof that "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" in order for it to be "presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". Cordless Larry (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The Croats diaspora is about 4.000.000 people all over the world. You can find Croats in England in 15th century and several articles like . The articles can always be improved and added to in the future, I agree with PKM1. --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 16:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess we can say that of any article on Misplaced Pages -- that it can be improved. But since intersection articles aren't "inherently notable" nor "absolutely prohibited", each one is judged on its own merits. Mandsford (talk) 16:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Why should Croatians.com be considered a reliable source, exactly? It appears to fall squarely in the category of WP:SELFPUB: written by a guy who published everything he's ever written through Ragusan Publishers, a company he owns himself, and who devotes an alarming portion of his written output to claiming that Croatians performed amazing feats which mainstream historians have traditionally attributed to people from other ethnic groups. As for the essay by Darko Zubrinic on CroationHistory.com: it seems he's a professor of mathematics writing non-peer reviewed essays about the history of his own ethnic group in his spare time. Again, not WP:RS. cab (talk) 06:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. —Cordless Larry (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Cordless Larry (talk) 19:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• Strongest possible keep - Improve, don't delete articles on these ethnic groups. The articles are not equivalent in completeness and should not have been lumped together in the same proposal just because they're all Slavic ethnic groups; the second contains notable individuals and the third contains a great deal of contextual information. Constant proposal of deletion rather than improvement is becoming disruptive to our project. Badagnani (talk) 05:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I can see now that the British Serbs article can probably be improved. In fact, I've added some references to that article that were suggested here. However, I don't think the same can be said of the Croatian and Macedonian articles, which no one has suggested any sources for which establish notability and meet WP:RS. Improvement is only possible if you can assert notability. The "great deal of contextual information" was added in the course of this discussion and was completely unreferenced, and, as such, I've removed it until references can be supplied. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. At list two I found in WP Maksim Mrvica and Davor Šuker (all search results hits from Google are connected to the soccer match England vs. Croatia). --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 15:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't really understand your comment. Are you saying that there are references in those articles that can be used to assert the notability of the articles under consideration here? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton 02:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: Valid topic. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
• Strongest possible keep and block proposing editor for disruption of our project. Articles cover notable subjects and some include a great deal of historical information, notable individuals, and other important information. Improve, don't delete, and direct your energies toward improving, not eliminating, our content. The fixation on attempting to eliminate entire articles on particular ethnic groups is draining on our resources as a project. Badagnani (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Society topics)
• AfD debates