Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bahamian british


 * 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   delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Bahamian british

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article has been previously deleted; a historical version could possibly be merged into British_African-Caribbean_community, but the current version doesn't really say anything. No notability claims, and not even a stub. SS ✞(Kay) 01:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge:It should be tagged CSD A1. No Content. Or perhaps it can be merged like you said-- Written by  General  Cheese  01:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete- Deletable as a dictionary definition and comes close to being speediable as empty. There are no sources and consensus at the previous nomination was that it isn't notable. Reyk  YO!  03:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per WP:NOT. South Bay (talk) 06:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable cross-categorization.  Anna Lincoln  10:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I hate to see such a well-sourced and informative article deleted after someone has worked so hard on it, but I'll get over it. Mandsford (talk) 14:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as article reposted after deletion discussion. By all means recreate hen there's something to say about this, but i can't see what ths article's got that the old one didn't. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.