Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bolivian 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 keep. John254 03:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Bolivian British
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No assertion of notability of this very small group of people. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep rewritten on the basis of multiple non-trivial, reliable sources, including two 20-page think-tank papers, as well as a couple of short newspaper articles. I have also moved the article to Bolivians in the United Kingdom because I could not find any evidence for the neologism "Bolivian British"; at least, none of the sources I found called them by this name. cab (talk) 08:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions.   cab (talk) 08:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.   cab (talk) 08:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions.   cab (talk) 08:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per above and speedy close per WP:SNOW. Please endeavor to improve our project in a manner other than constantly attempting to delete (rather than improve or merge) articles on ethnic groups. Badagnani (talk) 08:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete gee, I was going to use WP:SNOW as a reason to delete, because of all the articles like this that have already been deleted...--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. When I saw this earlier, it was nothing more than a definition. The current version is good enough to keep around. But I AM afraid it will set a bad precedent for writing about every migratory group of people in each country of the world...- Mgm|(talk) 11:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's better now, but I still have doubts about notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, although I have the same reservations as MacGyverMagic. --Lockley (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, I am extremely pleased that someone has found a large amount of sourceable material that has helped develop this into a perfectly acceptable article. I am astounded that after the improvements to this article representing a group of up to 25,000 people (yes Cordless Larry it is in the source) has been nominated for deletion. There were significant number of similar articles nominated for deletion a while ago, the concensus was to keep and improve. It now just seems that a select few users are going through them all individually and trying to get rid of them. Cape Verdean, Uruguayan and Dominican pages have already been deleted, fair enough as their hasn't been any improvement on these, but Bolivian British has certainly now earned the right to stay. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 16:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I nominated it before the improvements, not after. I realise that there was agreement to improve these articles, but as I mentioned here, none of the editors who promised to work on them as a result of the deletion discussions have done so. In fact, I've been doing more work on them than anyone who voted to keep them. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You may have helped by removing unsourced materials, but all you have basically done is delete sentences from articles and left many in a pathetic looking state (take Grenadian British for instance, there has been no effort at all to make it at least fairly presentable), anyway with the article at hand, I understand, but after these great improvements which have even in my opinion made it better than the Bolivian American page which overall represents a larger population, this article should definately stay. Nobody except you who has commented on this page wants it deleting. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 17:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to withdraw the nomination now that the article has undergone extensive revisions. I object to your comments about my editing though. I removed sentences, yes, but only unsourced ones or ones that you had attributed to sources that didn't back up the statements being made. Grenadian British is in a much better state now than it was before I removed a population estimate referenced to a source that stated nothing of the kind, amongst other things. Cordless Larry (talk) 03:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "There were significant number of similar articles nominated for deletion a while ago, the concensus was to keep and improve" --- false, there was no consensus at all. Articles are not deleted because no one is putting effort into them (see WP:NOEFFORT); they are deleted because they do not assert notability. It is not possible to "improve not delete" an article about a topic which has never been previously written about at length by scholars, journalists, or other reliable sources. (The fact that you created all these articles under these made-up names does not help people to find sources, either). "It now just seems that a select few users are going through them all individually and trying to get rid of them" --- Yes, we are getting rid of them because there is no possibility at all to improve them. This is why I (the same guy who just saved this article) previously nominated another one of your/Freize1's creations, "Indonesian British", for deletion. cab (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2008 (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.