Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of UK locations with large ethnic minority populations (2nd nomination)


 * 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. This time around, we do have a fairly strong consensus that the problems are severe enough to warrant deletion. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Lists of UK locations with large ethnic minority populations
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A previous AfD on this article closed as no consensus, with the closing statement noting that the OR issues could be fixed. Almost seven years later, the problems are still there: The whole article is an OR mess, and given that no one has shown any interest in fixing it in many years, I think it would be better to put the article out of its misery. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The article uses a mix of ethnicity categories where they are available (e.g. Pakistani, Black, Indian), but where groups are subsumed into larger categories (e.g. Other White), it switches to using country of birth, which isn't the same as ethnicity.
 * Different parts of the article use different sources for their statistics. Some are official statistics, others estimates, and different sources refer to different time periods.
 * "Large", "location" and "ethnic minority" are not consistently defined. Is "large" to be judged in absolute terms? If so, the answer is "London". If it's defined in percentage terms, then what counts as a location? A parish, a settlement, a county, a region?
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep This is an obviously notable topic. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. AusLondonder (talk) 03:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is notable enough. The current article is, as others have pointed out, a strange beast and needs work but it's not so bad that we need WP:TNT. Neiltonks (talk) 12:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to Foreign-born population of the United Kingdom. I have thought about this for a while. Initially it appeared to me to be a legitimate list, but on examining the sources it turns out that the list is mainly derived from a user generated list from the Office for National Statistics, which will do user-generated lists on request. You can get "English regions cross-referenced with age, ethnicity, household type (Jan to Dec 2014), employment status, NS-SEC, health conditions and local authorities for Jan to Dec 2015" or whatever else takes your fancy. As the nominator says, there are issues surrounding the structure of the list as it is ill-defined. The notion of what is "large" is not clear, and various from 17% to 2% to "significant" where the percentage seems to fall so low it can't be sensibly given. So there is no precise criteria from which to structure the list. The "ethnic minorities" are exclusively by country, so we don't have race, colour, language, or religion, simply countries of origin; and even then the source data is so unclear, we don't know if it is first or subsequent generation immigration. However, there is a sense that there is a useful idea behind the list, just that this is not the way to go about it. Foreign-born population of the United Kingdom does pretty much the same thing, but in a much more neutral and informative manner. There are links from that article to each ethnicity, such as British Chinese which has sections on where British Chinese live, such as British_Chinese and British_Chinese. Given that we already have the information, but in more more organised, detailed, and authoritative form, where the information is also dealt with in context, I am not seeing the value of keeping this list with its current problems. If the list were newly created I would say give it a chance, but as it was seen as problematic seven years ago, and has not improved in that time, I think deleting it or redirecting the title (and perhaps keeping anything of use) is the best way to go.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  19:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I say authoritative, but the source for British_Chinese turns out, again, to be user generated from the Office for National Statistics, albeit from a narrower focus. I think it would be better in these cases for us to be using reliable independent sources. If there is a genuine interest in the "Largest_urban_Chinese_communities" there would be a reliable source publishing the information themselves from the Office for National Statistics. We should not be generating and publishing such statistics ourselves as that runs foul of OR.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  19:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete: It's a shame, as it's a valid topic for an article, but the sources don't appear to be available to make one that isn't riddled with OR / synthesis. Jellyman (talk) 10:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete based on the analysis of the sources and other issues by . Egsan Bacon (talk) 14:47, 19 April 2017 (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.