Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of U.S. cities with large South Asian/Indian-American populations


 * 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. The only voice for keep was 173.63.177.192. Pointing to other articles is not a valid keep rationale per WP:OTHERSTUFF unless those articles have been through an AFD also. Nor is it sufficient to assert that souces showing notability exist. Such sources must be explicitly presented at the debate to have any effect on the outcome. SpinningSpark 17:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

List of U.S. cities with large South Asian/Indian-American populations

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nominating article for deletion due to WP:REDUNDANT & WP:GNG. Per WP:BEFORE looked for reliable sources to see if subject "U.S. cities with large South Asian/Indian-American populations" have received in-depth and/or significant coverage to warrant a stand-alone article, and there doesn't appear to be sufficient reliable sources to show that the subject meets WP:GNG. Therefore this article should be deleted, or merged and redirected to Indian American. This logic follows the reasoning at Articles for deletion/List of U.S. cities with large Filipino American populations. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note, due to the name of the article it appears that the wikilinking isn't working properly. The article in question is List of U.S. cities with large South Asian/Indian-American populations.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed :) – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 00:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. postdlf (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note, due to the name of the article it appears that the wikilinking isn't working properly. The article in question is List of U.S. cities with large South Asian/Indian-American populations.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed :) – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 00:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. postdlf (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and add relevant info to Indian American. -- Calidum  04:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, really, esp. since the basic terms of the article title and thus its subject are difficult to quantify. Drmies (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  09:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.-- TMD   Talk Page.  03:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose deletion. First, list articles have a reason for being, hey they're lists! Further, this article is NOT redundant. But I've always thought this 3 year old article should be retitled to drop the "South Asian" part and should just be "List of U.S. cities with large Indian American populations", because that's where all the reliable sources are in the Census and it can then be improved. One person has expressed the same complaint above. But to shove it back into the parent article would make that article look bad and is not the answer or good form. It's a shame the fate that occurred to the Filipino list article but every ethnicity is different and there's no reason an "Indian American" list article can't do as well as all the other ethnic list articles on Wikipedia that have done well themselves. 173.63.177.192 (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not a sub-article but an independent list article, therefore it must stand on its own for notability. The Filipino American list article was merged with an appropriate sub-article. The Indian American article does not have such an appropriate article or meets WP:SIZERULE to warrant a sub-article (presently 44.3k of readable prose (including titles and stuff in tables and infoboxes, 93k in size including references).
 * Furthermore, just because there is data doesn't mean that it has received in-depth/significant coverage. There is data about the tides in Mission Bay and its sunrise and sunsets, but that doesn't make that data notable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok some good points you make, but then that means deletion or merge is jumping over the centre step. A better idea would be to move this article to "List of U.S. cities with significant Indian American populations" (which I cannot do as IP) and then give it some time and a chance to develop like that without the extra burden of the South Asian feature continuing to hold the article back from notable improvement. 173.63.177.192 (talk) 20:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Moving it does not address the central issue of the subject requiring it meet notability requirements. Even if the South Asian part of the title is jettisoned, it does not make the subject any more notable, and thus warrant/worthy of a stand alone list article. That has not been addressed by the ip editor.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Why not? I cannot do all the work but I will be prepared to provide needed references. Of course it is notable, as a list article, which there are many in Wikipedia. I see nothing which makes all those articles more notable than this one. But it has been less compelling to reference because the title has gotten in the way. Once moved, I at least would be more inclined to get the sources. 173.63.177.192 (talk) 05:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Just saying it is notable does not make it so. Please see WP:NN, please find sources that provide WP:INDEPTH or WP:SIGCOV on list of "List of U.S. cities with large South Asian/Indian-American populations". Indian Americans as a subject are notable, a list of cities with populations of those individuals is not automatically notable, see WP:SALAT for relevant guideline (which the subject of this AfD does not met IMHO). As I stated, the parent subject of the article in question does not fit WP:SIZERULE for creation of any new sub-articles. While producing a url from the USCB factfinder is easy enough to do, a table of statistics does not make in-depth or significant coverage.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The standards per WP:NN are extremely subjective. What makes the article List of tallest buildings in Nigeria, or many many others like it in Wikipedia, any more notable? These claim to be nothing more than list articles to begin with and they are not pretending to be anything deeper. 173.63.177.192 (talk) 06:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * They are subjective, but based on the guideline, and what reliable sources can verify. Can the above editor prove that the subject of this AfD meets notability requirements?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, you just noted above that reliable sources exist and are easy to get from census factfinder data, and also as other ethnic and non-ethnic list articles are apparently notable to stand on their own. Someone just has to take the time to put the sources into the article, which I will can do, but the article title should be changed. I am wondering though, seems strange and wondering why the rush to want to take the extreme leap of closing out a harmless 3 year old article when it first needs encouraging and the chance to be improved. 173.63.177.192 (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Just because one can get a link to a table from factfinder doesn't make it in-depth or significant coverage, otherwise we'd have articles about tides in Mission Bay, as I stated earlier. I have found multiple reliable sources that give significant coverage to the death of PFC Angelo Zawaydeh, but it does not have an article because it didn't meet WP:PERSISTENCE and was argued as WP:NOTMEMORIAL.
 * Please see WP:NOTSTATSBOOK for a good reason why this article should not be a stand-alone article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTSTATSBOOK is not contradicting this article at all. It is simply advising against excessively long lists of statistics (many pages) and without context. That is not applicable to this article. It also suggests tables for readability. Definitely this article needs adding and work, which has further been hindered by the title. What would otherwise need to happen is changing the whole flavour and paradigm of all list articles, hundreds or thousands, but I don't think that is it. I suspect that the topic of this article is actually more notable than being downplayed. 173.63.177.192 (talk) 04:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * See WP:BURDEN & WP:PROVEIT.
 * Just because there are statistics, doesn't make a subject notable. Again, my example. I can find dozens of statistics about the tides in Mission Bay, San Diego, that doesn't make the tides at Mission Bay itself notable. Such content, might be included in the article about Mission Bay, San Diego, but an article similar to the one being discussed say "List of high tides on the San Diego County Coast" would not be notable just because each location has statistics on their high and low points.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Those are not posing any contradictions, either. It is already agreed that the article needs to be better referenced. It would also be rather insulting to an entire ethnic group to be equating their demographics with high and low tides. 173.63.177.192 (talk) 14:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There is already a section in the article Indian American on Demographics of that subject, there is no need, as I have provided (and that has not been challenged) for a sub-article about Demographics of Indian Americans, as I had stated before. If a sub-article is required to be produced, if Indian American article meets WP:SIZERULE, than appropriate sub-article(s) can be produced at that time, but they shouldn't be produced before than. See WP:REDUNDANT.
 * Because the IP editor is the only one in opposition, I will stop replying per WP:DEADHORSE. Cheers.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I never expected all these replies with Wikipedia links one after another from you but they kept coming, trying the same inapplicable strategy in so many different ways! Looking at your history, it is interesting that you had been in a fierce argument to promote the idea that there are more Filipino Americans than Indian Americans. Cheers! 173.63.177.192 (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2015 (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.