Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nepalis in Belgium


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Nepalis in Belgium

 * – ( View AfD View log )

fails WP:GNG. whilst the small number of Nepalese (2000 in a total Belgian population of 11 million) is not a reason alone to delete. there is no evidence of significant coverage of this migrant group. a few minor cultural events do not cut it. LibStar (talk) 03:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 14:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 00:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)




 * Delete or redirect to Demographics of Belgium. Neutralitytalk 04:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * please choose one. can't have both. LibStar (talk) 04:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We're discussing the fate of the article, not registering a one-way-or-another vote. It's quite appropriate to suggest two separate ways of resolving this.  That being said, this is a poorly written article - for an article created in 2010 to contain such a sentence as "The number of Nepalis claiming to be Maoists fleeing the counter-insurgency drive and seeking political asylum in Belgium has soared from 270 two years ago to more than 500 in 2002" is bizarre, the more so in that said insurgency won the civil war six years ago.  The article was created by User:DaTraveller, whose Wikipedia activity seems focused around creating "diaspora" articles, and who doesn't seem to have been notified of this AfD, which is improper. (I've just now notified DaTraveller, and suggest that an admin who might be otherwise inclined to close this hold it open for a full week after the most recent relisting to give him a chance to respond.)  Nonetheless, I'm with Neutrality, and either a Delete or redirect would work for me.   Ravenswing  13:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello everyone! I'm sorry I didn't reply. I was actually aware about this nomination before I left overseas and I was going to ask questions about this nomination. Anyways now that I'm back, I made few adjustments to the article. I fixed the source link for the "Migration History" section and i also removed the "citation needed" tag as the information for the entire section is from the second source link. If there is anything you guys would like to tell me please let me know. DaTraveller (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Legitimate part of a series. Content is better placed here than in demographics of Belgium, where it would be disproportionate. Alex Middleton (talk) 00:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: That's not a legitimate ground upon which to keep; that way leads indiscriminate nonsense such as Nepalis in Andorra, Nepalis in Swaziland or Nepalis in San Marino, on the specious premise that we have to have "complete" series articles whether or not there is verifiable content or whether or not there is any population of any real significance. For instance, I'm curious as to whether you have found any reliable sources discussing, in significant detail, the collective actions of Nepalis in Belgium, any more than the rest of us have.   ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  02:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Three sources are listed in the article. One is a dead link. Another is a Christian Missionaries or some charitable trust website. The third source is a reliable source that focuses purely on how asylum seekers have gone up to Belgium from Nepal. One reliable source, notability of a list does not make. Request delete as soon as convenient.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  08:26, 16 June 2011 (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.