Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tajiks 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. If somebody wants to bring any of these back to AfD for another look, I suggest they not be bundled like this. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tajiks in Canada[edit]

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

All these articles fail WP:GNG, lacking as they do "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The fact that X number of Tajiks etc. live in Canada is relevant, is recorded at immigration to Canada, and can perhaps be noted at ethnic origins of people in Canada. But it's insufficient for a standalone article, due to the lack of in-depth coverage on this topic. The only source supplied is a census form listing 264 (!) ethnic groups. Obviously, a number of those have received attention from reliable sources: Italian Canadians, Ukrainian Canadians, Chinese Canadians, and so forth. That is simply not the case here, and the articles should be deleted, or at best redirected to one of the target articles mentioned above. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Keep all of the articles listed above.

I suspect that the main reason behind the deletion requests for the wikiuser Biruitorul is to delete the article about Moldovans in Canada, since he/she believes that there is no such a thing like Moldovan people (seen to be exclusively ethnic Romanians, which is most likely true but to face the reality there are two nation-states Romania and Moldova), even though these people identified as Moldovans in the 2014 Canadian Census. Why there are two articles for Moldovan Americans and Romanian Americans but not for the Canadian case? Let's keep the article Moldovans in Canada and I hope that the wikiuser Biruitorul could successfully try to develop it instead of deleting it. MaronitePride (talk) 05:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- We're not here to discuss your suspicions - do review WP:AGF for that. We're also not here to ask what about X? We're here to determine whether the topics up for deletion have received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Thus far, you have manifestly failed to accomplish that. - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's enough sourced info here for a stub. Tchaliburton (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- There really isn't, Tchaliburton: the only "sourced info" we have is the number of people living in Canada who are of Tajik/Uzbek/Moldovan/Kazakh ethnicity. You can't legitimately base an article - even a stub - on a single number. Yes, those numbers are worth noting at, say, ethnic origins of people in Canada, but as far as standalone articles go - no, we simply don't have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", by any reasonable definition. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - There's enough sourced info here for a stub. Biruitorul, if you want to be helpful please feel free to improve/add to the 5 articles instead of deleting them. I hope that it is a good (friendly) advice to you.

Keep and improve the following articles:

MaronitePride (talk) 16:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mention it the first time, MaronitePride, but please refrain from adding Tatar Canadian and Georgians in Canada to the AfD proposal. I did not nominate those articles, and if you wish to nominate them, you can do so on your own terms.
Simply repeating what has been said above - "enough sourced info here for a stub" - without accounting for my own rebuttal is not a valid response. The only response I have to that is that you still have not produced evidence that the topics in question have received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". If you want the articles to survive, you may wish to dig up some of that elusive coverage. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- "I didn't mention it the first time, MaronitePride, but please refrain from adding Tatar Canadian and Georgians in Canada to the AfD proposal." And can I ask you something. And Why not? The two articles (Tatar Canadian and Georgians in Canada) seem to have the same "big problems" as you see in the articles Uzbeks in Canada, Moldovans in Canada, Kazakhs in Canada, Tajiks in Canada. (I am within Wikipedia to contribute not to ask to delete articles, that's why I do not want to delete but to improve/add.) Unfortunately, I cannot read/understand Moldovan/Romanian even though I speak French (since I am Lebanese Christian and I have a good knowledge of Spanish) in order to develop/contribute more for the article Moldovans in Canada. This is my last post here, a place for voting but not forum. Let's the people decide based on their democratic right to vote.

MaronitePride (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An article, even a stub, should have at least one reference to an independent, reliable secondary source. These articles do not. They have only a primary statistical source and a related, not determinatively reliable website. That cannot satisfy WP:GNG. Stubs are created when there is a good verifiable claim to notability or adequate substantive coverage in reliable independent sources, but they (stubs) have not been expanded yet, or they fulfill their function at the stub level. Not having either an independent claim to notability nor substantive independent coverage will eliminate a stub just as well as a full blown article. --Bejnar (talk) 04:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's enough similarly sourced articles and laveled for a stub. Example, Cuban Canadian. If we delete the articles for deletion mentioned above then why we keep the article Cuban Canadian, which only source comes from a census form listing 264 (!) ethnic groups. The same source was used in the articles proposed for deletion: Tajiks in Canada, Uzbeks in Canada, Moldovans in Canada, and Kazakhs in Canada. Yogisenact (talk) 19:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. I agree that there may be articles other than four that we are discussing here that would be deleted as a matter of the notability guidelines were they to be put to Afd. However, we are not discussing those. We are discussing these four articles. There is no special safe-haven for stubs. Please apply the guidelines and policy to these articles in your reasoning as to why any of these should be kept or deleted. --Bejnar (talk) 04:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. XXN (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all 4 articles. Noseamuseos (talk) 02:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please apply the guidelines and policy to these articles in your reasoning as to why any of these should be kept. Afd decisions are not based on !votes, they are based on reasoning. --Bejnar (talk) 04:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis - 2¢ 20:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The level of citation here is typical of a stub of this sort, and I see no evidence that it couldn't be expanded. No compelling reason to delete. ∴ ZX95 ^[discuss] 21:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ZX95, there is, in fact, a pretty basic reason for deletion: none of these topics are notable, as defined by WP:GNG—the topic "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Significant coverage is not a line on a census report. Significant (or independent) coverage is not a copy off an organization's website (Tajiks). Significant coverage is not a trivial report about a gathering (Uzbeks). Significant coverage is not trivia about a parish church (Moldovans). Significant (or independent) coverage is not a copy off an organization's website (Kazakhs).
- On the contrary, weeks after these were created, I see no evidence any of these topics have received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Can you show any? - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there simply aren't enough sources here for a valid article and I see no potential for expansion. Any relevant content can be included at Ethnic origins of people in Canada.--Codrin.B (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2014 (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.