Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guatemalan Canadians

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 redirect to Latin American Canadians. There is rough consensus that there is not enough coverage of these topics (Fooian Canadians) to warrant an article. The "keep" opinions are in a minority and mostly weakly argued: the screed by PhiladelphiaWanderer34 must be disregarded because of personal attacks (" Wikipedia and Slywriter have committed literary genocide"), and the opinions by Bearian and ~Kvng merely assert importance without citing sources. There are a few "keep" opinions that do make valid arguments but they are a very small minority. The idea of redirecting instead of deleting the articles, per WP:ATD, has received no opposition, and is accordingly implemented. This allows for selective mergers of content from the history if desired. Sandstein 10:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guatemalan Canadians[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This is just a dumping of statistics from Statistics Canada/ Census. No indication of notability nor encyclopedic value. Fails WP:GNG. Slywriter (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Slywriter,

While the Latin American Canadian community in Canada is relatively smaller than the Latino American community in the United States (2% in Canada as opposed to almost 20% in America), the Latino Canadian community in Canada deserves a page. I’m now seeing that this doesn’t have anything to do with just the Guatemalan and Honduran Canadian communities but all of the Latino Canadians as well. The pages can be added and edited with links and articles of each associated page. The statistics are there to compare and contrast as well as for further research into the corresponding communities. All this Wikipedia page is for is to make an fairly easy research involving census data as well as adding additional data involving each associated community.

Mind you, why delete the Latino Canadian page and what’s the purpose other than the lack of links other than Statistics Canada? By deleting the Latin Canadian Wikipedia page as well as the other pages associated with Latino Canadians, you’ve practically erased one portion of the Canadian community and by erasing an entire page, you’ve made an entire community invisible by your shortsighted attempt to exclude Latino Canadians from Canadian society.

There are similar communities outside of the Latino Canadian community in which each ethnic group has similar number as low as 10,000 people to has high as 50,000 and no more than 100,000 so should we delete the Trinidadian, the Bajan, the Ghanaian and the Nigerian communities because each community doesn’t make up 1% of Canadian society? Or how about just delete the Cambodian and the Laotian community in Montreal because it’s too small for Canada? But we can add certain other communities like the Maltese and the Albanian communities and not even think of deleting their data from Wikipedia.

Before looking at the Latino Canadian page, I wasn’t even aware that Canada had a present Latino community. After reading the Wikipedia page, I was impressed that Latin Americans didn’t just migrate to America but to Canada as well and I’ve also learned that Latinos have established communities in Calgary and Edmonton for Venezuelans, Brandon and Winnipeg MB for Salvadorans, Ecuadorians in Brampton and Toronto ON, and Dominicans and Colombians in Montreal and Laval.

If Wikipedia goes along with the deletion of not just The Guatemalan and Honduran communities, but all of the Latino Canadian communities, then it looks like Wikipedia and Slywriter have committed literary genocide amongst a small, but a rapidly and robustly growing population in Canadian society. Also, if this happens, then I’ve lost faith in Wikipedia in providing fair and unbiased information for the world’s masses.

If that’s what Wikipedia wants to do, fine, but you’re doing this at the expense of a people and a group and I don’t want to use the word but it’s a very prejudiced notion to delete an entire group because of “ lack of information or lack of literary value”. I’ll have to bring this up to the Latino associations in Canada so they can read and review this literary genocide that’s about to happen today! PhiladelphiaWanderer34 (talk) 21:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from personal attacks like "genocide" and restrict your comments to discussing the articles (ideally with support from Wikipedia policy, not emotional pleas) and not comment on other editors or your perception of their motivations. This is purely about Wikipedia policies. I've placed this here so the community can determine whether its notable and meets notability guidelines.Slywriter (talk) 22:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume the community exists, why wouldn't it? We have immigrants from all over here. Not all immigrant communities are notable enough for wikipedia. Please present multiple sources showing what prominent individuals from the community have accomplished, which would go a long way in supporting notability standards. Otherwise, this is no more than list and a collection of numbers. Oaktree b (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Oaktree_b Here's the section that I created that shows what prominent individuals from the community have accomplished:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemalan_Canadians#Notable_Guatemalan_Canadians

This was done recently, after the nomination. At that point, it was mostly just numbers. CT55555 (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A total of 5 people? That could easily just be added to a list elsewhere, they aren't exactly notable on their own either. Oaktree b (talk) 21:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteIt's not literary and personal attacks are not welcome. No notable sources found. Oaktree b (talk) 23:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because substantially same issue, they are all either notable or not:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Canada, and Guatemala. Slywriter (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm never sure how to discuss these bulk nominations. I assume because they are bulked together, I don't need to make 14 different !votes and 14 different arguments and we're just picking the top one as the proxy for the rest. I therefore make a !vote and argument for Guatemalan Canadians without checking if it is the more/less/average notability for the group. If I'm wrong in this approach, please say.
Keep Using Guatemalan Canadians as the proxy for the whole group, I find Guatemalan Canadians to be a notable topic, as per the points below:
1. An academic paper on the topic https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08263663.2004.10816859
2. The following PhD thesis about refugee groups in Canada mentions Guatemalans 93 times https://central.bac-lac.gc.ca/.item?id=NQ56093&op=pdf&app=Library&oclc_number=1006925288

These reliable, independent sources provide significant coverage of the topic, and combined with what is already in the article, demonstrate notability as per the guidelines located at WP:GNG CT55555 (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Reliable" sources? I have to say that a source which starts with the turgid sentence of "Through a transnational lens, I draw attention to the spatialization of Guatemalan refugee and immigrant settlement in Canada and highlight the relatively local and immobile lives, yet highly transnational social relations, that characterize their experience" is highly likely to consist of equally turgid twaddle. Have these academic papers been vetted and peer-reviewed? Ravenswing 07:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first one was published in the Canadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies which is a bona fide academic journal with over 40 years of publishing history. It is published by Taylor & Francis, the editorial board is detailed here
While the second one is a PhD thesis and therefore your question is valid, it was also later published as a book by Routledge, and therefore that can remove any doubt - https://www.routledge.com/Transnational-Ruptures-Gender-and-Forced-Migration/Nolin/p/book/9780367604035 I just used the PhD thesis because it was searchable.

So overall, yes, they are reliable sources. CT55555 (talk) 10:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can only hope that the administrators in Wikipedia can come to their clear senses and understand that some chap may have a problem with Latinos in Canada. I’m not even sure if he’s from Canada and it’s funny because I’m not Canadian neither but an American citizen and somehow someway one poster feels that an ethnic group deserves deletion because to make a long story short, the Latino community in Canada is insignificant to deserve it’s own page on Wikipedia.

We’re not all prefect and we make mistakes on Wikipedia that can be easily corrected, but then again Slywriter wants us to be “collaborative” when he’s vouching towards removing an ethnic group from Canadian topics because in his own words, “there’s no indication of notability nor encyclopedic value”, which is off putting at the most and can be considered prejudiced for certain people.

My only appeal to the administrators who read this is to take this off of deletion because this has become very annoying for people who not only want to learn about Latino Canadians and Canada in general, but understand how immigration does affect different countries. The proposed deletion of the Latin American Canadian page was the final straw and I can only hope Slywriter gets reported for trolling and ethnic intimidation. It’s a shame we have to deal with people like him but that’s the world we live in and it’s a shame! PhiladelphiaWanderer34 (talk) 03:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDATABASE is the relevant policy. A chart of primary sourced statistics is not encyclopedic content. Also enough with the personal attacks, WP:Civility is not optional.Slywriter (talk) 04:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, PhiladelphiaWanderer34, because it's plainly impossible -- and what kind of person does it take to assume good faith in these situations??? -- for someone to nominate articles for deletion on Wikipedia out of policy motives, instead of having some sinister and dastardly racist scheme. Perish the thought. Ravenswing 06:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All of this info is already included in Ethnic origins of people in Canada and the relevant Category:Latin American Canadian categories. The only reason to have a standalone page on the topic is if the topic itself has received SIGCOV in multiple secondary independent RS. Articles by the same person are not considered "multiple" because they are not independent analyses (not that a PhD thesis cited like 5 times should ever be used here), so we still need further sources demonstrating "X Canadians" as a group have received direct, comprehensive coverage if this page is to be kept. JoelleJay (talk) 05:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point about both the sources I mention being by the same author. Here's a book that is mainly about migrant workers from Guatemala working in Canada, but it has enough coverage of those who make it their home to say it also addresses the topic:

Legislated Inequality: Temporary Labour Migration in Canada. (2012). United Kingdom: McGill-Queen's University Press.
Regarding the PhD thesis, it's actually also a book and I was going to cite it like that, but it wasn't searchable, so I went for the searchable one. But I mention above it's a published book too, so I hope that removes any doubt about its reliability. CT55555 (talk) 11:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
... and you've read it, I presume? Ravenswing 19:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It depends what you mean...
If you're asking if I read the entire book before commenting on notability - no

If you're asking if, as part of my WP:BEFORE type analysis to inform my opinion about the notability of the topic - yes.

So yes, I've read it, no, I've not read all or even most of it, just enough internal searching of it to establish that is has significant coverage of the subject. CT55555 (talk) 22:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Leaving aside disgusting accusations of racism, I'd like to address CT55555's keep rationale. It may well be so that, say, Guatemalan Canadians are a potentially notable topic. It is also true that these articles don't remotely represent an encyclopedic treatment of their subjects. They're nothing but database fact sheets that tell us nothing but how many of X live in Y province. Terrific, so now we know that there are -- or at least that the provincial government believes -- 45 people of Guatemalan descent in Newfoundland. We know nothing else. How many of these people (if any) still use their parent languages? How many retain their ethnic customs? Are there any known Guatemalan communities or neighborhoods? Any notable ethnic folk festivals celebrating their background? Had these articles contained such information, reliably sourced, I wouldn't be voting to Delete. Ravenswing 07:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think your comments about X living Y are what is in the article now, not what the sources I've quoted add. I respect your interests in various aspects of society, but those are you just your opinion, you are not making a argument based on guidelines here. The focus of this conversation should be if it can be established that the topic is sufficiently notable. No guide specifies that any article must have details about ethnic folk festivals etc. CT55555 (talk) 10:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, they don't. But they really need to have details about SOMEthing. (Those were examples, not my personal chiseled-in-granite laundry list.) NOTDATABASE is a perfectly sound deletion rationale, and the way to counter it is to actually provide encyclopedic elements that are not wholly collections of stats, not to simply speculate that such elements might be out there.

Now indeed, that's my opinion. AfD exists to gather editors' opinions about notability, so I don't quite see what the issue there is: certainly you gave, well, your opinion on the reliability of those sources you provided. Ravenswing 19:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:DEL-REASON #8 our job here is to discuss if the subject is notable. Not if the article, as it stands today meets notability criteria. We need to do a WP:BEFORE type search, which I've done, and identified sources, and that contains details. They are not in the article just now. That doesn't matter. The encyclopedic content exists. You cannot dismiss the sources I've cited on the basis of WP:NOTDATABASE because it doesn't break any of the 4 criteria there currently, I think. And it definitely doesn't when you consider the sources I've mentioned above. CT55555 (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to report that I've added in content about folk festivals and neighbourhoods where Guatemalan-Canadians live. CT55555 (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and also the other pages Salvadoran Canadians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Dominican Canadians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Cuban Canadians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), etc., unless you are also able to open up a page for each Departamento of those countries, so you would have Petén Canadian Guatemalans, Sololá Canadian Guatemalans, Retalhuleu Canadian Guatemalans, etc. For that matter, you should also consider opening up the Petenese Albertan Canadian Guatemalans, the Petenese Quebeçois Canadian Guatemalans, the Petenese New Brunswick Canadian Guatemalans, etc. Each person is entitled to be acknowledged. XavierItzm (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a helpful essay about this delete argument here WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. The argument that I hope justifies keeping is that it meets the notability criteria, rather than anyone saying that every group should have an article. CT55555 (talk) 22:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all (merge in the few instances it is appropriate) to Latin American Canadians as an ATD and as plausible search terms. These all fail NOTSTATS as argued above; and making them into actually suitable encyclopedic articles would pretty much require a new start from scratch (not that there is much to start with here, to begin with). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additional note: a select few of these appear to have some non-stats coverage. However, given the state of the target article, and per WP:NOPAGE, a merge (which can be done from the history once they are redirected) would probably be more appropriate - this can be done independently of the AfD, though. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian: That strikes me as an unusual proposal. You're allowing that some of these may have mergable content but you're saying we should redirect them all nevertheless. ~Kvng (talk) 18:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A merge is functionally the same as a redirect (and well, there is absolutely nothing that prevents anybody scouring through the edit history of the redirects to include the material in the main article). What few have "some non-stats coverage" is not nearly enough for a full article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I have significantly expanded the article in the past hour. CT55555 (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article per WP:SIGCOV, and procedural keep all the others, some of which might be notable and others less so. Bearian (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This topic area clearly needs improvement but WP:NOTCLEANUP. All of this can be handled through merges and redirects. All of these titles are valid search terms and do not need to be deleted. ~Kvng (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Failing WP:NOTSTATS is not something that can be cleaned up short of starting all over form scratch; so in the vast majority of cases here there is nothing of substance to keep. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read it in recent hours, I have significantly expanded it and added the exact information that a delete voter said was needed to change their mine. CT55555 (talk) 22:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That still doesn't seem to be enough for a full, stand-alone article. A redirect (with potential merge for the articles which actually have something to them) still seems more appropriate. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe coverage of specific Guatemalans, or even groups of Guatemalans, in Canada is sufficient for GNG. We would want more coverage of the diaspora as a whole; simply grouping "temp workers from Guatemala" and "Guatemalan refugees" as two examples of Guatemalan Canadians is OR/SYNTH. Such piecemeal coverage could be used to justify a standalone on practically any minor intersection (like Guatemalan Ontarians), but there is a reason we have the WP:NOTEVERYTHING instruction. With such limited content, the material would be more useful and visible in the Latin American Canadians page. JoelleJay (talk) 00:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of these should be deleted. They should either be kept, merged or redirected depending on their state. Since you've nominated them as a group I'm responding as a group with something that will work for all in the group. If you want to nominate them individually, for each case, please justify why you think they should be deleted rather than redirected. ~Kvng (talk) 23:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Latin American Canadians, without prejudice to recreating the articles selectively if actual significant coverage is found about any of the specific national diasporas in Canada. At the moment, these articles contain very little other than database-type information and lists of notable people of said ethnicities, but no actual content about the diasporas themselves. Some of the content is also trivial; for example, is the press release-sourced content about Salvadoran Canadians working at a meat packing plant really enough upon which to base an article on that diaspora? I contend that it is not. That being, any sourced content that is actually relevant would better serve to expand the History section of the target article. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Somewhat apparent lack of BEFORE here. I find 1,000+ hits for "Cuban Canadian" on newspapers.com with a search since 1961 in Canadian newspapers, the first page of the results contains SIGCOV articles from The Ottowa Citizen, Edmonton Journal dealing with that community. "Mexican Canadian" turns up 2,000+ hits with the first page of results showing articles on the Mexican Canadian community. Yes, yes, of course there will be articles about Canada-Cuba-Mexcio intergovernmental relations etc, but it appears that there are multiple articles dealing with the communities in mainstream Canadian newspapers. I'd encourage a separating out of the nominations here. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Latin American Canadians. Stifle (talk) 14:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Easily passes WP:SIGCOV from the sources already present in the articles. Even if that were not the case, there are plenty of academic journal articles on these topics in publications like the Canadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies (for example see this article for Guatemalan Canadians ). Clearly a WP:BEFORE search was not followed. While the articles themselves could use some fleshing out, that has no impact on notability. These are topics with significant coverage in published academic writing and the articles could be expanded if we utilized the published sources available in JSTOR, PROQUEST, etc.4meter4 (talk) 05:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lots to process, but this is a clear delete for me. I looked at the Guatemalan Civil War article listed as the main article for the Refugees section, and there's no mention of Canada. I went to the Temporary foreign worker program article listed in the next section, Seasonal workers, and there's no mention of Guatemalans. So at least in those two sections, putting those topics here is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The last section is a one line mention of a folklore group, sourced with a diplomatic bulletin written by the Consul General of Guatemala in Montreal. Not a notable group, and it doesn't move the needle. I considered the redirect to Latin American Canadians proposed above, but there are no subsections about specific nationalities there, so merging anything more than the five people would make the target article unbalanced. If someone was willing to undertake the long arduous task of making a section for each of the cross-country matchup articles proposed for deletion, in articles similar to Latin American Canadians, maybe we might have something worthy of a merge, but I'd have to see it. Most of the sources are census statistics, imparting no more weight on this particular matchup than any other. I'd argue that we need more reliable sources for 26,000 migrants from one country to another to be noteworthy. Another problem - I looked at the list of notable Guatemalan Canadians, and not all of them are from Guatemala - rather, they have Guatemalan parentage. Since that's the only meaningful content left that applies to this topic, it seems we are essentially arguing to keep a list of people segmented by their parental lineage. Is that the best use of everyone's time? Look at this ongoing discussion about clarifying the citizenship status for someone who is quite notable AND has easily proven dual citizenship.Talk:Timothée Chalamet#RFC on nationality in the lead and shortdesc. I'm not seeing the point of keeping this one, so it's a delete. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's annoying that you called my editing original research when the data in the article is plain in sight. On seasonal work, I quote from the source, literally the opening line on the source Since 2003, Guatemala and Canada have productively implemented the mechanism of a temporary guest worker program, which has grown from a few hundred workers to close to 4,000 in 2010. Please be more careful. CT55555 (talk) 02:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - but still not enough. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 04:38, 16 June 2022 (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.