Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgians in Canada

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. A Train^talk 16:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Georgians in Canada[edit]

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

This small group doesn't appear to have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. The population figures can be covered at Ethnic origins of people in Canada. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the topic is almost inherently notable, in my opinion. - The census-taker has seen fit to collect statistics about them - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the National Household Survey asked a question about ethnicity, and some people wrote in "Georgian". See Q17 here. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Statistically insignificant population group with no indication of notability or significance. Cjhard (talk) 10:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An obvious keep, really. As already a quick look at Template:People of Canada, this is (as already pointed out) almost inherently notable. That the group is relatively small does not make the topic less notable. No viable reason to delete. Jeppiz (talk) 21:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The practice lately has been to delete similar articles, Jeppiz, so I'm not sure they can be considered inherently notable. See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Djiboutian Americans, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Djiboutians in the Netherlands, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bahamian British (2nd nomination). Cordless Larry (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Larry, not sure you need to answer every comment - but of course I don't mind, if you want to. Yes, you have been nominating similar articles for deletion before, as those discussions show. I respect that, but I don't agree with you. I actually find Any nationality in any country to be notable. We don't have too little space, and any of these articles is to some extent notable (much more notable than unknown football players in fifth tier, whom Wikipedia for some reason consider notable). If we decide they are not notable, then where do we draw the line. Why would Americans in Canada be notable but not Georgians in Canada. More numerous, sure, but then we're back to the line. 1000 people? 5000? 10.000? Actually, I once read a long and fascinating article on the only Jew remaining in Afghanistan. 1 person, yet notable. So my answers would be that any nationality in any country is a notable topic, and I see no reason to delete any of them. Jeppiz (talk) 22:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about there being a numerical threshold, Jeppiz. Notability is judged by whether there is significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Bigger groups are more likely to attract that sort of coverage, but there's nothing to say that a small group can't have been subject to it. In this case, the sources to demonstrate notability simply don't exist (unless you can prove me wrong). Cordless Larry (talk) 22:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:45, 21 July 2017 (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.