Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norwegian diaspora (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 KEEP. Good luck to all you brave souls who participate in the subsequent renaming discussion. Clear eyes, full hearts. postdlf (talk) 02:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Norwegian diaspora
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This topic of this article is a neologism constructed through wp:synth. The two sources that are used to support it do only use the phrase once, but are about other topics. This is conflict with WP:NEO which states that "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term.", and WP:RS which states that "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

There are exactly 16 references to "Norwegian diaspora" in google scholar. Clunies Ross' (an australian professor of Norse poetry) is one of them. None of the refrerences use the phrase in a way that suggests that this is a set phrase or concept rather than an ad hoc coinage to describe particular migrations of Norwegians in the 19th and 20th century. One other source mentions the phrase in relation to the colonization of Iceland by Norsemen from what later became Norway, she writes "Icelandic archaeology also confirms the rather puzzling picture from the family sagas of the first settlers not as an aristocratic Norwegian diaspora, but as materially poor subsistence farmers, who had few prestige objects from abroad, and modest farmhouses." The usage of Clunies Ross is taken out of context and she clearly delimits the scope of the statement saying that it is only valid "in this context'". Clearly neither of these sources can be used as sourcing for the notion that that there is a general academic consensus that the settlement of of Iceland and the Faroe Islands are part of the same phenomenon that caused the emigration of Norwegians 1000 years later.

The academic definition of the word diaspora is as a group of people living outside of their homeland but maintaning a sense of belonging to the ancestral home. This is the description given in the preface of the Encyclopedia of Diasporas: Immigrant and Refugee Cultures Around the World. Volume I: Overviews and Topics; Volume II: Diaspora Communities Melvin Ember, Carol R. Ember, Ian Skoggard (eds.)p. xiii) - which does btw. not mention Norway or a Norwegian diaspora even once in its almost 1000 pages. No evidence has been presented that Norwegian communities outside of Norway constitute an actual diaspora, rather than simple expatriate communities. ·Maunus· ƛ · 21:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also take a note that diaspora is not synonymous with either immigration, emigration or expatriate community.·Maunus· ƛ · 22:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep How can a phrase. "Norwegian diaspora" in use since 1955 be considered a neologism? It may have been a neologism in 1955 but has had over 50 years of usage in the United States. We have Category:Diasporas and why are the Norwegians an exception to migration from their homeland while maintaining their culture? I would think that Garrison Keilor would not have a career if it was so. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it has ben used only in passing referring to different things. There is no mention of Norway or a diaspori community of Norwegians in the literature on Diasporas, much less mention that would include the entire population of two modern day countries. This makes as much sense as including Every modern country outside of Africa in the category "African diaspora" because allo humans originally migrated from there.·Maunus· ƛ · 22:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * When you say "no mention of Norway or a diaspori[c] community of Norwegians in the literature on Diasporas" you mean it is not in the book edited by Melvin Ember that you keep referring too. While that book does mention a dozen or so diasporas, not being included in your favorite book, doesn't mean it isn't notable by Wikipedia standards. There are other reliable sources used in the article. You also use "Diaspora" with a capital letter, which Merriam-Webster defines differently form a "diaspora" with a lower case "d". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I mean no mention of NOrway in the considerable body of literature on Diasporic studies. Just to give a small number of examples: "Theorizing diaspora: a reader Jana Evans Braziel, Anita Mannur - 2003 ", "Diaspora: an introduction Jana Evans Braziel - 2008" "Diaspora and multiculturalism: common traditions and new developments Monika Fludernik - 2003", "Cartographies of diaspora: contesting identities A. Brah - 1996", "Gatherings in diaspora: religious communities and the new immigration, R. Stephen Warner, Judith G. Wittner", "Diaspora politics: at home abroad, Gabriel Sheffer - 2003", "Diaspora, memory and identity: a search for home Vijay Agnew - 2005"... None of these even mention Norway once. Diasporic studies is a large and growing field, despite of this you have not been able to find a single mention of a "Norwegian diaspora" in a book that actually has "diaspora" as its topic... This is not about my favorite book, the way that you have tried to downplay its importance in favor of literature unrelated to the field of diasporic studies has been embarrasing to watch, it is about showing that there is a large field of people who specialize in the study of diasporas and they never ever talk about a Norwegian diaspora, not even a single time.·Maunus· ƛ · 11:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You are confusing two different issues. A "neologism" is a newly coined word, so maybe it was a neologism in 1955 where it first appears in Google Books. What you are arguing is "notability", but the article isn't about a notable word, it is about the notable concept and all the synonyms it entails. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not clear to me at all, that the uses of diaspora among Lutheran missionaries in the 50s and 60s (earliest such mentions in Google books to which you are referring) are indeed about the same concept at all. In context it appears to mean Norwegian Lutherans specifically.  In this sense it is extending the original meaning of Diaspora, into a modern context, from Judaism into Christianity.  That is not at all the same as the general usage you've built the page around.  Certainly, this would not include the pre-Christian Norsemen who settled Iceland.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The word Diasporas has been around since 1881 according to Webster's dictionary . Its clearly defined.  And this discussion seems rather familiar.  I do so much hate reruns.  Plenty of reliable sources confirming migrations of people from Norway to elsewhere at various times.  If you click the Google book search at the top of the AFD, you can even find people calling this Norwegian diaspora, although you don't need to use that exact word to find information about this.   D r e a m Focus  22:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * yes, the word diaspora exists and the word Norwegian exists - now show me where there is substantial coverage of the phrase "Norwegian diaspora". 16 passing mentions in disparate contexts do not count. Read WP:NEO.·Maunus· ƛ · 22:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You can use migration as a synonym is you like. Its about the migration of people from Norway, not about a word.  We could call the article Significant Norwegian migrations throughout history but that'd be a bit long winded, and other Wikipedia articles about this sort of thing use the word diaspora.   D r e a m Focus  22:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to propose a move to another title do it at the talkpage, or if you want to create an article about Norwegian migration you can do that freely. Here we are discussing the notability of the topic "Norwegian diaspora" as Mr. Norton has frequently pointed out. ·Maunus· ƛ · 23:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep My only criticism is that there is almost no content. Otherwise this is not just about the word "diaspora" it is about the people of the "Norwegian Diaspora". This article needs to be populated with notable people of the Norwegian diaspora.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 22:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The nominator removes content as fast as I can add it. Can someone please look minimally at the last reference and last material added about Iceland and decide if it should be restored. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That is simply a lie. I have removed one pice of information because it is not supported by the source you are uisng. You have repeatedly (3 times) reinserted it and it is currently in the article because I have not reverted a third time. The reason that there is no content in this article is because it is a non-existant toppic that is not covered in any reliable sources.·Maunus· ƛ · 22:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions.  —BurtAlert (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It is because your argument is that you know the truth and it overrides what the verifiable reliable source has written. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have never mentioned truth, or given my own interopretation of the topic. I have however asked you to verify the existence of a norwegian diaspora by citing sources that give it a substantial treatment. You have not been able to do so.·Maunus· ƛ · 23:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Category:Diasporas has 245 subcategories. How many articles total have Diasporas in their title?  D r e a m Focus  23:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably as many articles as there are topic with substantial coverage in reliable sources. Other stuff exists is not an argument.·Maunus· ƛ · 23:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Other stuff exists is a bad argument when an editor points out one other article newly formed, since anyone can create anew article. It is not when you show a category of 245 articles all in the same style. When you do that it is called a precedent. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Do the other articles look for the exact word being used in all of the sources? Everyone knows what the word diaspora means, or they can look it up. All notable migrations of a people at any time in history, is included in the various diaspora article.  D r e a m Focus  23:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently you are not anyone then since you claim that "diaspora" is a synonym of "immigration" and "emigration" (how can one word be synonymous with two antonyms? The logic is astounding.) If you want to know what it means look in scholarly literature such as the Encyclopedia of Diasporas.·Maunus· ƛ · 23:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You emigrate from one nation to immigrate to another. I  used the word "migration" though.  D r e a m Focus  23:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The antonym would be deportation. Emigration and immigration are directional synonyms. You emigrate from a county and immigrate to a country, both talking about the same event. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Doesn't matter as long as we can discuss a name change after the AfD closes - This is not a cohesive subject matter covered in depth in reliable sources. If it were the sources would have been produced, but they have not been.  There is ample room in the encyclopedia to cover mass emigrations from Norway and the resulting communities in a manner that reflects scholarship on the topic.  Let's figure out the proper way to present this content to our readers instead of just pushing the big read "keep" button.  OK?  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Every notable migration listed in the article is in fact covered. They don't have to call it by the word "diaspora" for it to be one.  D r e a m Focus  23:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The nominator has expanded to a second front, see Swedish diaspora which is now up for deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A second "front". This battleground jargon does not help anything.  I'm also unsure of what that nomination has to do with this present discussion.Griswaldo (talk) 23:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Everything. Unless out of three million articles these two were picked at random. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And I suppose you "randomly" happened upon the the other article or deletion discussion? Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep While it's not much yet, I believe that Norton is going to make an article out of this. As with Swedish diaspora, maybe someone can come up with a less exaggerated word for emigration than "diaspora".  I don't know who first thought that one up, but it doesn't make the subject sound more sophisticated at all.  It's kind of like calling every repression a "holocaust".    Mandsford 00:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is an inflation/devalution of the meaning of the word diaspora - migrations yes diaspora no.·Maunus· ƛ · 01:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a dictionary, so our concern is not with the phrase "Norwegian diaspora" but with the phenomenon. Looking at our category "Diasporas", I see 183 subcategories and 17 articles about the general phenomenon of emigration and emigrant communities originating from various places. Margaret Clunies Ross, who has edited the scholarly works Old Norse Myths, Literature and Society and Old Icelandic Literature and Society is a distinguished scholar with major work  published by CUP; I fail to understand why the nom wants us to dismiss her as "an Australian professor of Norse Poetry" whose words on Norwegian diaspora bear no authority. From reading the article's talk page and its history, it seems to me that RAN's effort to write on this topic has indeed turned into a WP:BATTLEGROUND, but the battling doesn't seem to me to be exclusively or even primarily the fault of RAN.  Sharktopus  talk  00:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And how can you know that the phenomenon is notable or existant if nobody uses the phrase? Cunies word bearno authority because she is writing about Icelandoc poetry and not norwegian population movements and only sues the word once in passing. Read WP:NEO. And If we want to assign blame regarding battlegrounds we can start by asking who recreates an article before the deletion review is concludced and who starts his arguments by using personal attacks, that would probably go a long way to explain the kind of response RAN is getting. ·Maunus· ƛ · 01:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * comment User:Dreamfocus is now trying to redefine the meaning of Diaspora in the article about that topic to concord better with his keep argument.·Maunus· ƛ · 01:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You had previously changed it to be your definition of it, quoting a book which has the word "encyclopedia" in its title, but isn't proven to be a reliable source. I tried to clarify things based on the dictionary's definition of the word, since that dictionary is a reliable source.  People are welcome to join the discussion there.  I'm hoping we'll get more input on this.   D r e a m Focus  01:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know what world you live in where an 1200 page academic encyclopedia published by Yale and SPringe press is not a reliable source nut Merriam-Webster's is. Good grief.·Maunus· ƛ · 01:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Diaspora. A people dispersed by whatever cause to more than one location.  The people dispersed to different lands may harbor thoughts of return, may not fully assimilate to their host countries, and may maintain relationships with other communities in the diaspora. Discussing this over there.   D r e a m Focus  01:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep on the simple basis that the article describes with precision its subject matter (an yes it is referenced). If you're arguing about the title, then move it to a better title. Life is really too short for this type of discussion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This argument does not adress the WP:NEO concern - sources are not just any source.·Maunus· ƛ · 02:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NEO does not apply to this topic any more than WP:BLP does. This is not an article about a new phrase or about a novel concept. The phrase "Norwegian diaspora" has uses going back to 1986. Furthermore, "Norwegian diaspora" is just a convenient shorthand way of talking about Norwegian "people dispersed in different lands." Sharktopus  talk  02:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your usage of diaspora makes it impossible to distinguish from others like ex-patriot, tourist, or even colonizer. By that definition African slave communities in the new world would be no more diasporic than British land owners in colonial Kenya. I'm not sure if you understand the irony there, but if you were familiar with the literature on diaspora you most certainly would.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Griswaldo, you are absolutely correct that the traditional use of diaspora has a resonance and depth that is far from its also-accepted-by-dictionaries current meaning, from which I was quoting a fragment. Here are a couple more definitions of "diaspora": "4. any group migration or flight from a country or region; dispersion. 5. ( lowercase ) any group that has been dispersed outside its traditional homeland." It seems to me that the self-defined descendants of Norwegian emigrants do fit that description. See for example Dutch diaspora and Hungarian diaspora, both of which use the term simply to talk about people of foo-descent living outside foo-country. Whether or not the Vikings are part of Norwegian diaspora is surely a matter to deal with in the article's talk page, not by filing an AfD. Sharktopus  talk  03:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

 * Weak keep this is a descriptive term, so that bit about neologism seems hokey. Descriptive titles are not prescriptive. It is concise and succint, unless you want a long-assed title like Worldwide distribution of ethnic Norwegians outside of traditional areas of Norwegian population distribution. The state of the current article sucks, and needs expansion badly, but nominating it for deletion as a neologism seems very odd. That ethnic groups and their migrations are a subject of study by ethnologist should not be in dispute, that "diaspora" is a term used to describe some of these things should also not be in dispute. I fail to see how using a descriptive title is synthesizing a new fact, unless writing sentences that are not wholly plaigirism is also SYNTH. The current article doesn't actually cover anything, except that it says that it should cover something. 65.95.14.96 (talk) 04:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, the article should not be judged by its title. The Foo Diaspora terms are used for consistency on Wikipedia. If there has been no literature on Norwegians in other countries, then the article should be deleted. But, there are plenty of books about Norwegians who emmigrated to North America and elsewhere; Norwegians in Minnesota, Norwegians on the Prairie: Ethnicity and the Development of the Country Town, Norwegians in Wisconsin, An account of the Danes and Norwegians in England, Scotland, and Ireland, The promise of America: a history of the Norwegian-American people, and From Fjord to Frontier: A History of the Norwegians in Canada. There is a Norwegian presence in San Pedro, California. Sig Hansen from Deadliest Catch is a Norwegian American. There are Norwegian Australians! Abductive  (reasoning) 06:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The appropriate descriptive term for an entry like this, and many others that currently use "diaspora" would be "emigration". You all don't seem to understand that there is a substantial literature on "diaspora" in the social sciences, and it is much more than a fancy new term for emigration, which is how you all are using it.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but that is not grounds for deletion. My only concern is that Wikipedia has all these articles in the Category:Diasporas and this topic is no different from the rest of them. I would have no problem renaming them all "Foo emigrants" or something, but that would require an RFC. Abductive  (reasoning) 12:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The solution here is to rename all of these entries, unless they are really discussing "diasporas", so named in the literature on the various ex-patriot communities. The current entry has next to no content.  Deleting it and starting a real entry on "Norwegian emigration" or something like this should not be a problem.  As long as it maintains this current title it is problematic.  What keeping the entry, as it is, will do is to make such a renaming much more difficult.  People will say, "look at the AfD, the community spoke and diaspora is a viable term for this".  I really don't think that's the way to proceed. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. "Norwegian" is notable. "Diaspora" is notable. Any attempt to use this to imply that "Norwegian diaspora" is notable is WP:SYNTH. Stifle (talk) 09:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron. Snotty Wong   squeal 15:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename - From our own article on diaspora: The notion of diaspora is often linked with the diasporic community harboring a longing for, or a wish to return to, the ancestral homeland, and generally with a maintenance of a separate ethnic identity over significant periods of time. I don't see any evidence of this being true among Norwegian expatriates or their descendants, and I also don't see many sources using the word "diaspora" to describe this phenomenon.  I'm not sure what the ideal title would be for the article, but something along the lines of Norwegian emigration would work for me.  Snotty Wong   squeal 15:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That definition was just written by Maunus, and as you know we don't use recursive logic in Wikipedia. We don't say something is so because it appears in Wikipedia, unless we are talking about issues of style. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a style issue. This article is not going to be deleted, and renaming these articles needs to be done en masse, for which a bigger forum is required for consensus. Abductive  (reasoning) 16:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I essentially agree with this POV, but I think that practically speaking if we don't delete we're going to have a much harder time renaming this and other entries like it. People are going to hold this AfD up as proof that the community supports an entry titled "Norwegian diaspora".  That's my biggest worry at this point.  Category:Diasporas is filled with entries that need a similar treatment.  Note that some expatriate communities are actually referred to as diasporas in the relevant literature, but these need to be sorted out from the rest.Griswaldo (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Is Wikipedia going to adjudicate which region's emigrants "deserve" to be called a diaspora and which are just emigrants? The word "diaspora" is now used for emigrant communities including the Dutch diaspora, which is (according to Amazon.com's description of a recent book The Dutch Diaspora) "the former colonial empire of the Netherlands." See also the dictionary definitions many have cited here. The editors of The Encyclopedia of Diasporas have no power to freeze the meaning of an increasingly-common English word. Furthermore, letting the word's meaning be used in a general way is a benefit to our readers, since it will help them find articles they are looking for. We can leave it to the text of the articles to inform readers of the circumstances that caused emigration in various cases. Sharktopus talk  16:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The irony here is almost drowning me. Wikipedians are the ones who have claimed the term diaspora for groups of people who are rarely ever called diasporic in reliable sources.  That's the very point here.  Reliable sources refer to some populations as diasporas, while not referring to others as such for a good reason.  You may wish to figure out why.  Either way, here at Wikipedia we go by what the sources tell us.  Your argument is completely self-contradictory.  You falsely claim that others are doing exactly what you are yourself arguing for.Griswaldo (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This article is not going to be deleted for having a bad title. I strongly urge interested parties to hold an RFC on a better naming system. Abductive  (reasoning) 16:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Dictionaries and general usage have long ago made the change Griswaldo deplores. This is not evil Wikipedians leading a mob up the mountain to demolish your castle, this is Wikipedians following common usage of a useful term now used to denote a wide range of emigrations. Nobody is being harmed by this expansion of an old word's definition. Sharktopus talk  16:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You are asking us to be ok with original research. It has never been OK to create compound words based on dictionary definitions and apply them to subjects that are not covered by reliable sources under those concepts.  Especially when other subjects are discussed in reliable sources under those concepts.  Also, please understand that dictionaries offer only very broad definitions of terms.  Encyclopedias are able to discuss those terms a greater depth, following the mainstream literature on a topic.  That's what we're meant to do here.  As I noted already, if the literature calls a certain emigrant group diasporic and not another that's what we do.  It is not up to you are I as editors to say ... "well despite what the literature does, I can logically explain how group Y is also diasporic based on a one sentence dictionary definition, so that's what we'll call it here".  Once again, that's ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedians make stylistic decisions all the time for how articles will be organized and what the topics will be called. Please note that the most edited article last week is a neologism, the exact phrase used in the title doesn't appear outside of Wikipedia: 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests, yet everyone making the edits understands what belongs in the article and understand it is an article that is going to touch on a broad range of issues. We don't spend hours debating what is a "protest" and what is a "demonstration". Every reference work makes stylistic decisions that are going to irk someone. There are a half dozen here that I would have done differently, but I don't go from article to article trying to delete the ones that contain the name or formatting I dislike, I lobby to make the change globally. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator. This verges on a small group of editors using Wikipedia to publish their own novel view. The only response supporters seem to have is their constant reliance on dictionaries.  Not only is this unencyclopedic, it is often a sign of OR. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and sanction nominator. The article is great and the nominator seems to have it in for Scandinavians and their advocates in the present day.  Racism?  I think perhaps Ja.  Chacha gurl B (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. This editor has registered today and has repeatedly vandalized the the nominated article.·Maunus· ƛ · 19:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment As of February 11, this was the entire lede on Diaspora: "A diaspora (from Greek διασπορά, "scattering, dispersion"[1]) is the movement or migration of a group of people, such as those sharing a national and/or ethnic identity, away from an established or ancestral homeland." On February 11, Maunus filed the first AfD against Norwegian diaspora, on February 12 and 13 he replaced this accurate definition with a much more restrictive one that is now presented to us as the "established" usage Wikipedia articles must honor. This established usage was established less than two weeks ago, cherry-picked out of the universe of all the various definitions in WP:RS in order to support wiping out articles that use the word to mean exactly what it used to mean up until February 12.  Sharktopus  talk  19:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It really interesting how "cherry picking" a large academic encyclopedia about the very topic the article treats can be seen as problematic. There is a movement in wikipedia to use only the most trivial definitions of understandings and definitions and exlcude actual academic discussiond and definitions of concepts that originate in academia - this trend I am produly opposing. A scholarly encyclopedia trumps laymans understandings and dictionary definitions every day. Secondly it is not as if I am frivolously nominating for deletion here - the first afd was closed as delete and yet the article was recreated within hours of the closure. This comment by Sharktopus is an unfounded attack on my integrity as an editor and academic and should not go uncommented by administrators. ·Maunus· ƛ · 19:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Can people help decide whether the Settlement of Iceland belongs in the Category:Norwegian diaspora. The reference in Norwegian diaspora clearly places the Settlement of Iceland as part of the diaspora, but the category keeps getting removed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And what a great "reference" that is. The snippet from google scholar says "So, in this context, Iceland was just one of many, the last settled colony of the Norwegian diaspora. " have you actually taken a look at the book to find out in which specific context she is talking about? My guess is that you haven't. Immpressive scholarship.·Maunus· ƛ · 19:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith. And the book is one of a series of books published by Cambridge University, and seems quite notable.   D r e a m Focus  08:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I might assume good faith - but in this case I have no reason to assume competence. What context is she talking about? The book is probably notable in the study of skaldic poetry in which Dr. Clunies-Ross specializes - but it is not notable as a source on Norwegian migrations.·Maunus· ƛ · 17:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Argue against the ideas, not against me personally please. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will keep that in mind Randy.·Maunus· ƛ · 17:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

 * RAN, I wonder if expanding this topic to Scandinavian diaspora might solve some of your problem with the Vikings. Maunus, as an admin yourself, could you set a better example here on WP:CIVIL? Sharktopus  talk  20:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You and R.A.N. have been making personal uncivil remarks against me from the very outset of this case, attempting to impute me as a person and as a scholar. I do not appreciate your insinuation that I am the one personalizing this dispute. ·Maunus· ƛ · 21:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I never even heard of you until I stumbled on this article a couple of days ago; your AfD of a previous version of this article was filed on Feb. 12. RAN already explained that his reference to Essjay was based on an impression that you (like Essjay) wanted your own opinions to trump material found in WP:RS, not on a wish to cast doubt on your userpage claim to be a grad student/scholar studying whatever, which I also don't doubt. Sharktopus  talk  05:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Such an expansion would be extremely problematic. Scandinavia is a region encompassing a variety of ethnic groups and cultures. You would want the plural at the very least there.  "Scandinavian diasporas", but then I would not advice this unless it is a concept one may find in reliable sources.Griswaldo (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Griswaldo is now depopulating Category:Norwegian diaspora. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not so. You added two entries that do not belong in the last couple of days.  The Norse settlement of Iceland and colonization of North America do not belong in the category. I note that you are simply reverting without discussing on the talk page or even using edit summaries.  Nice to see you tattle on me here though.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That is the beauty of "undue" it creates its own summary. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It simply states what you are doing and offers no explanation for why. I see you are still not using the talk pages.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster.com have no mention of any desire to return. It's just the scatterring of people from the ancestrial homeland. (and also the meaning from the Greek) 65.93.15.125 (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Can people come to Settlement of Iceland and weigh in on whether the Settlement of Iceland should be in the Category:Norwegian diaspora. The category already includes "Norwegian migration to North America". I think the argument being made is that the Norseman of 1,000 years ago are not synonymous with the modern state of Norway that was created in 1905. But by that argument any pre-1905 event should be struck from the article on Norway. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep A google book search for "Norwegian diaspora" returns about 27 hits, "Norse diaspora" returns a further 5, and "Scandanavian diaspora" (which would include Norse migrants) around 47 - so the subject is notable and verifiable the only argument that has any weight here is WP:NEO and that rests only on whether all these sources simply use the term "Norwegian diaspora" or whether they are about the concept of the Norwegian diaspora - browsing through these sources I have to conclude it is the latter as they are mainly reliable texts about Norse migration and colonization. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 00:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There are several hundred hits if you look in books on Norway and then search for diaspora. Books that have Norway as their topic don't use the phrase "Norwegian diaspora", they just say "diaspora" because the reader already knows the topic is Norway. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Lets be clear here. "Scandinavian diaspora" and "Norse diaspora" turn up hits to the Viking age. "Norwegian diaspora" turns up only one such hit.  I'm not convinced at all that most of these books discuss the concept in depth.  Also, please compare those 27 hits to these 122,000 dealing only with the subject of Norwegian emigration to America.  If "Norwegian diaspora" is a mainstream term for the subject matter discussed in this entry why does it only appear 27 times in Google books, amidst this vast literature?  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is writing these things to try and change your mind, we all know where you stand on the issue. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Summary up to this point It is a relatively new phrase, but not one banned by Wikipedia rules, since it goes back to [at least] 1986. The word "diaspora" has been replacing the word "migration", and has been adopted by Wikipedians through consensus to cover all topics on migration in 245 categories. There is nothing exceptional about Norwegians and about Swedes that exempt them from either the scholarly use of the term, or the broader Wikipedia use of the term. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1986? Google books hits show it's use in 1955,1960,1973,1978,1980 so it's not even a new term. @Griswaldo There is a difference between general emigration and diaspora. As "Ember, Ember and Skogard" says, Emigrants will often integrate fully with the country and culture they emigrate to whereas member of a diaspora are more likely to retain contact with other communities within the diaspora and make plans to return to the homeland when the cause of their leaving is resolved. In sources, the Norwegian diaspora is used to refer to outposts of the Viking empire, Norwegian Americans who put political pressure on the Swedish government to give Norway independence, how the Norwegian Lutheran church grew in America among American-Norwegian communities who retained their Norwegian culture, and so on. I've no doubt you could write an article on Norwegian emigration, but the subset of that emigration that is diaspora is notable in it's own right and does not meet any reasons for deletion, only reasons for improving the article.Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 09:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, Ember has a much narrower definition than Merriam-Webster as does William Safran in 1991. But I don't think the Wikipedia approach should be to discard the dictionary definition for a narrower rule developed by any individual. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The difference between Ember, Ember and Skoggarrd and Safran as opposed to the merriam webster dictionary is that the first mentioned are scholars and experts on the topic of Diaspora and the second is not. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.·Maunus· ƛ · 17:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Dictionaries are not written by trained monkeys at typewriters. I think it is safe to assume that dictionaries are written by experts, just not experts that agree with your favorite book's more restrictive definition. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But Merriam-Webster is still quite narrow as all definitions are made relating back to an "ancestral homeland" if a second generation immigrant comes to consider the country they are born in as their homeland then they've already moved out of Merriam-Webster's definition of Diaspora and within another generation there may be no consideration of the change of nationality and culture. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken if you think all of those 27 sources are discussing Norwegian emigration in the manner you claim. They are not.  More importantly however, thousands of other sources do discuss Norwegian emigrant communities of that kind without using the term "Norwegian diaspora".  It is clearly a term used by very few.  In terms of the Viking era, that few is exactly ONE source.  Please stop referring to sources in the plural there.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please maintain civility, In my previous post, I already established that I believed that use of the terms "Norse" and "Scandinavian" were synonymous with "Norwegian" when sources discussing the diaspora of Norway. Should the term be changed? I don't think so Scandinavian is too general and can cover other Scandinavian countries and "Norse" is used far less in Reliable sources than "Norwegian" however these sources do establish Norwegian emigration in the Viking period as a diaspora. Interestingly the term Diaspora is only applied to the first and third waves of Norwegian emigration (Viking and the Americas) the second to mainland Europe and primarily the Netherlands don't use this term, so whilst sources may consider that an emigration tey do not consider that it formed the specific identity of a Diaspora. I also think if you check all 27 sources you will find that the majority are discussing the Norwegian Diaspora in the way that I claim and only perhaps 1 or 2 use it in the general way of identifying all Norwegian emigration. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * They are quite different. Norse, and Scandinavian encompass much more than the inhabitants of the territory of Norway, which was not one singular cultural or political entity during the entire Viking era, certainly not when Iceland was settled.  There is a good reason why "Norwegian diaspora" is not used by these sources.  It is not just happenstance.  To refer to Norwegians at all in this era is absurd.  Yes some Norsemen might be proto-Norwegians, or the ancestors of modern Norwegians and those would be Norsemen who remained in Norway. The Norsemen who settled in Iceland are not, and were never "Norwegian".  They are the Norse ancestors of present day Icelanders.Griswaldo (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC) \
 * By the way, the vikings who colonized the Americas did not even originate from the geographic region now known as Norway. They are absolutely not Norwegian.  If the claim is that their ancestors did then why stop there, because every human inhabitant of the entire earth is just part of the African diaspora in that case.Griswaldo (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, they did. In the Settlement of Iceland it says they came from Norway.  Click on the names of the guy who discovered it, and in his article it says he was from Norway.  In Norway right now, they teach their children about their viking ancestors in all the schools.   D r e a m Focus  14:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It says the settlers of Iceland (not the Americas) came from Norway because that's the way we currently refer to the region they inhabited. It does not call them Norwegian for a very good reason. The term Norwegian does not appear in the entry for the same very good reason.  Because back then, one was not Norwegian.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't seem to have an issue with discussing say German Diaspora where our articles on pre-unification emigration treat the two as comparable however unlike German there is no single term like "Volkdeutsche" that is not already used to connote some more specific or more general meaning that is separate from this - it does not mean that a term cannot be applied evenly as some sources already do with Imsen preferring "Norse" and Ross preferring "Norwegian". On some of your other points "Americas" refers to those who left Norway in the 1850s to early 1900s during Swedish rule -not early Norse settlers in the new world. I also noted that we should focus on sources which specifically addressed the Norwegian elements of a Norse (2 sources of the 5 use Norwegian as well as Norse) or Scandinavian (18 of the 45 use Norwegian as well as Scandinavian) Diaspora. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep but rename I'm with the nominator that "diaspora" is not correct in this case, as reflected by the lack of sources, but that the topic itself, under a title such as Emigration from Norway or Communities of Norwegian origin, is notable. The implication in the use of the term "diaspora" of a feeling of exile and wish to return (which derives from the original exclusive use for the Jews) makes it an insulting word when used of some modern communities, notably Iceland; as reflected in the sources, to equate all emigré groups with diaspora is not a modern and acceptable usage, but a blurring of an important distinction and in many cases a great oversimplification of history. Which does indeed fall under WP:SYNTH. While information on the people of Norwegian heritage in various parts of the world and how and when they got there is encyclopedically valuable, the article should be moved to a more accurate title and distinguish clearly between cases and periods. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 3

 * The Cambridge Introduction to the Old Norse-Icelandic Saga By Margaret Clunies Ross is published by Cambridge University.  Is this used as a textbook in any of their classes?  As I and I believe others have quoted from it before, it says "Iceland was just one of many, the last settled colony of the Norwegian diaspora." on page four.  There are a series of books from that university which start with "The Cambridge Introduction to" in the title, so I assume the university gives its backing to what is being published.  Everyone post whether they believe this to be a reliable source or not please.  I certainly do.   D r e a m Focus  08:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As pointed out above, that is a reference to events more than 1,000 years ago, and the sentence actually says that the settlement of Iceland was the last such diasporic colony. After that have come many political events, not the least of which was the assassination of Snorri Sturluson for treacherously seeking the reunification of Iceland with Norway, the dissolution of the Icelandic Commonwealth. I would not be surprised if this is why the category keeps getting removed from the article. Use of the term diaspora is at best extremely anachronistic and potentially insulting. Icelanders are proud of their independence. There is a real distinction here, not just a hang-up over words, and that citation does not support use of the term in the contemporary context. --Yngvadottir (talk) 08:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It says it was the last "settled colony" of the Norwegian diaspora, not that other things considered a diaspora didn't come after that.  D r e a m Focus  09:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Either way it is one source. There are thousands of sources discussing the "settlement of Iceland" and not a single one of the others use that term.Griswaldo (talk) 12:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You can not delete an article because it follows the same naming conventions of hundreds of other articles of the same type. We're here to discuss whether the article is a notable subject or not, not what terms it uses in its title.   D r e a m Focus  12:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh? What does that have to do with your claims just above which have been thoroughly debunked. I'm responding directly to your claim that the settlement of Iceland, and other Viking era migrations are part of this topic, which they are not.  Your reply is a non sequitur.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The diaspora category is a Wikipedia style developed by consensus. If you think the category should be changed to "migration" then you are welcome to start a "request for comment". But depopulating the category with entries for Norway and Sweden and deleting the main articles for only Norway and Sweden is disruptive. We then have an incomplete set of 245 entries minus 2, because somehow Norway and Sweden are exceptions to the Wikipedia style. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * NO there are legitimate entries in the category. There are others that are about migration more generally and yes should be in another category. There is no reason why this can't be sorted out, and why we can't develop style conventions that reflect what reliable sources do.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You still haven't produced a reliable source to contradict the reliable source used to include. You are arguing truth and we are arguing reliable sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't need to provide a source stating that the moon is not made of green cheese or that there were no animated skeletons fighting in the peloponessian war. And you also are apparently incapable of using our policy WP:RS to realize that a source is only reliable in a specific context. In this case noone has even bother to look in the book to find out what context Clunies-Ross is actually talking when she starts her statement by "In this context, ...".·Maunus· ƛ · 20:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That is called the strawman fallacy where you set up a ridiculous idea then knock it down as if it were made of straw and then conclude that it applies to the previous argument. No one argues that the moon is made of cheese, yet we have sources saying that migration and diaspora are synonyms. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you keep repeating yourself then it will become true clearly. I have supplied plenty of evidence. But you can't prove a negative in the manner you propose.  The point is that the subject matter of this entry (Norwegian emigration) is discussed in thousands of sources, while only 27 of those have used this term, and when they have usually once in an entire book.  Here are some examples, but again what's the point of listing them one by one?, , , , .  These books discuss the community of immigrants, their ties the homeland, their continuance of cultural practices, without ever using the term diaspora.  That a handful of sources have used the term, to discuss the same subject is not in dispute.Griswaldo (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Another attempt at a summary: Several issues are being raised. A major point for the nom is that the word "diaspora" should be reserved for emigrant populations "foo" that have been extensively discussed by scholars using the exact words "foo diaspora." Even if this assertion is accepted (the assertion is being debated here and at Talk: Diaspora), do we need to delete an article-in-progress about the Norwegian emigrant community in order to preserve diaspora's most restrictive meaning? A second major point is whether or not the Viking expansion should be part of this article. In my opinion, it should not -- but that question should be dealt with by consensus on the article talk page, not by filing an AfD. I have been arguing against deletion, but I think that the Viking diaspora should be dealt with in Viking expansion, not conflated with the past hundred-plus years of emigration from Norway. Sharktopus  talk  19:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right that several things are being conflated, and I think we actually, basically agree. I am in this second afd because R.A.N. has stubbornly defended the notion that the topic of "Norwegian diaspora" is notable in spite of a complete lack of treatment of that topic in reliable sources. I am not arguing that wikipedia should not have an article about emigration from Norway or, Norwegian immigrant communities in the US. I am arguing against the idea that all emigrations and immigrant communities shall be blanket labeled as "diasporas" without regard to how reliable sources call those communities. If someone had suggested to rename the article to "ex-patriate Norwegians", "Norwegian migration", "Norwegians in the US", or something similar I would have supported that idea as long as the article treated that topic and was based on sources. However due to the tenacity of certain editors here, and the way they have shifted the argument to be about consistency of style taking preference over the existence of reliable sources and to the notion that new topics can be constructed as neologisms by using a dictinary, I am now forced to push for this article to be deleted in order to show that it is not ok to create articles about topics that are not supported by substantial coverage in secondary sources. Is this a sad waste of time? yes. ·Maunus· ƛ · 20:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Working to enhance the possible good-will here, I endorse your wish for the article Diaspora to reflect current and past scholarship. But (just to go to an analogy here) the only True bug is a hemipteran arthropod, and woe betide any zoology grad student who calls a coleopteran a bug. The word "bug" also has a colloquial meaning -- it gets used alone or in compounds like Pill bug or even Software bug. Having non-scholars use the word "bug" in colloquial ways does not damage the ability of scientists to define a "true bug" and make a scholarly article available here to readers. The common noun "diaspora" is not as common a noun as "bug" but it is becoming common enough as a synonym for ethnic communities living outside a homeland that many Wikipedia articles already refer to such communities as "foo diaspora." Perhaps an RfC about what to do with all such article titles would provide a good forum to address the larger issue.  Sharktopus  talk  21:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this rather amiable exhhange which provides a delightful break. I do maintain that I don't think wikipedia articles should take the colloquial meaning of words as their point of departure - unless this is already well entrenched in the reliable sources about the topic. I think the academic usage of words should generally be privileged, because this is an encyclopedoia and not a dictionary. I realize that this is perhaps not the view of the general community and this is why I believe this Afd is of principial importance, because it goes to the heart of how we use sources to support notability, and naming of articles - and how we weigh internal consistency vs. consistency with academic usage. I think an RfC might be a good idea - but in my experience Afd's get much more community attention than rfcs.·Maunus· ƛ · 21:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this is called disrupting Wikipedia to make a point when you call for the deletion of an article because of the semantics of the title. There is the talk page to discuss name changes, and RFCs for larger issues about global naming in Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It is disrpution yes, the disruptor however is you who recreates articles already deleted, argues without basis in policies, makes personal attacks from the get-go, and who has clearly argued that if this article is not deleted that that will be evidence for its notability and a precedent for naming of further articles following the same flawed logics in effect leaving me no other option than to get these articles deleted in order to hinder the creation of swathes of similar unsourceable articles. This is now a matter of principle and you made it that way.·Maunus· ƛ · 23:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's remember the old wise saying, keep your words sweet and tender, you may have to eat them. Sharktopus  talk  23:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per AfD WP:NOTCLEANUP. An article about Norwegian communities outside Norway is without a doubt encyclopedic. The proper forum for concerns about its title and scope is Requested moves. walk victor falktalk 20:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My position is that the nominator and the delete !voters above have failed to understand Wikipedia's rules on this, and in particular they've failed to understand the reasons for the rules. The rule is WP:BEFORE: where there is an alternative to deletion, don't delete. In this case there's an alternative, which is to convert this title into a redirect to Viking expansion.  The references already provided in the article show that "Norwegian diaspora" is an attested alternative name for the Viking expansion, in scholarly literature.  As such it's a plausible search term and we can do better for our users than to give them a redlink.  The reason why "redirect" trumps "delete" in this case is because a "delete" outcome leaves a redlink that directly encourages inexperienced editors to write an article in that space.  If we give them a redirect to follow instead, then we can save a lot of discussion and process the next time around.— S Marshall  T/C 12:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree in essence that this should be handled differently, but perhaps you missed the fact that an entry with this title was recently deleted. That explains the reason for renomination I think above anything else, though you're right.  In the end another solution will most likely be found.  That said I take issue with the bulk of your assertions.  This is not an "attested alternative name for the Viking expansion".  It is used in only one source in that manner.  I repeat, one source.  Sources use labels like "Scandinavian" and "Norse" when discussing the vikings because claiming a "Norwegian" ethnic or cultural group in most of that time period is almost silly.  "Norwegian diaspora" is therefore not a plausible search term for Viking expansion at all.  It ought to redirect to an article that discusses Norwegian emigrant communities from the modern era. That is what the bulk of few sources that use the term are referring to when they do ("bulk" equals all but one).Griswaldo (talk) 12:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment In the interest of harmony and uniformity, could the renaming of this article be postponed until after there has been a wider discussion of what to do about similarly-titled articles such as British diaspora and Dutch diaspora, and others which (like this article-title) use "diaspora" in its increasingly-common unscholarly sense to mean "emigrant communities"? Sharktopus  talk  14:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. We need to treat each entry on its own.  The issue isn't whether all entries should stop using the term "diaspora".  A broader discussion will only muddy the waters here and create gridlock.  We can't decide on each individual case in such a discussion.  Nor should we.Griswaldo (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies, Griswaldo, I don't think I made my suggestion clear. What I would suggest is that the discussion of "diaspora" be concluded before re-naming articles in any individual case, including this one. If consensus agrees on some delimiting meaning of "diaspora", or if it agrees that "diaspora" cannot be used for any nationality that has not been treated at length by diaspora scholars as "foo diaspora", then it will be time enough to rename some articles but not others, in my opinion. Closing discussion now should be absolutely without prejudice to a future re-naming of the article if consensus agrees that "diaspora" is the wrong word here. I see that a wider discussion has been proposed below but I hope some knowledgeable admin will move it to an appropriate noticeboard where it can get wider input from admins and others whose grasp of our policies is much wider than my own. Sharktopus  talk  17:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We cannot determine the meaning of diaspora for use across the encyclopedia, and as used within compound words or phrases. That's my point.  If there is a Norwegian diaspora it is determined via reliable sources that discuss a "Norwegian diaspora" and not through some Wikipedia wide consensus of what "diaspora" is that is then applied to sources about Norwegian emigrants which themselves never use the term.  The wider discussion proposed below is framed in such a way that no meaningful discussion can be had between those who share my perspective and those who share RAN's.  It is a bogus question he has posed.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

<--It is your contention that "Norwegian diaspora" cannot be used to mean "Norwegian emigrant community" even though about 15+ Google Book results use the phrase to mean exactly that. The basis of that contention is a series of different claims: 1) 1) that WP:RS do not suffice to determine the meaning of words because scholarly definitions of any word are privileged, 2) that the policy WP:NEO forbids any use of "diaspora" that scholars have not extensively studied, and 3) that WP:SYNTH forbids using "diaspora" in article titles with its increasingly-common meaning of "dispersed community sharing some kind of identity" (and scholars too are using the term just that way, Google "gay diaspora"). All those contentions and claims are disputed. That is why we need a wider discussion. Sharktopus talk  22:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article's topic is clearly notable (established by reliable sources). I offer no opinion on whether or not there is a better title for the article. Blueboar (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I remain unable to understand how the "topic" can be something other than what is described in the title. We are voting on the topic that the title describes, not the current content of the article. ·Maunus· ƛ · 22:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What is described in the title is "Norwegian emigration and emigrant communities" or maybe even "people who consider themselves Norwegian but do not live in Norway. Those are common, modern meanings of the word "diaspora", see for instance scholarly discussions of "gay diaspora." There is no need to delete an article that is about X just because someone claims that anything with that article title must be about Y. An AfD is a vote on whether or not to delete an article, not a vote on whether or not the page should be moved to a different title. Sharktopus  talk  08:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * DELETE:no coverage in reliable sources as this topic. Maybe the small bit of information garnered so far could be merged into an article about Norwegian immigration.  He  iro  02:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Dream's thoughtful comments, and the coverage discussed above.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Final summary from my view Diaspora is defined by Merriam-Webster as "the movement, migration, or scattering of a people away from an established or ancestral homeland". Maunus found a definition in a book on diasporas that includes "a desire to return to the homeland" as a restriction in usage. "Norwegian diaspora" is a relatively new phrase, but not one banned by Wikipedia rules as a neologism, since it goes back to at least 1955 according to Google Books. The word "Norwegian diaspora" is used as a synonym for "Norwegian migration" by Wikipedians through consensus to cover all topics on migration in 245 categories at Category:Diasporas. There is nothing exceptional about Norwegians and about Swedes that exempt them from either the narrow scholarly use of the term, or the broader Wikipedia use of the term. Nominating this and Swedish diaspora because of the title is Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Any arguments about the title could have been made on the talk page or at a Request for comment. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

In conclusion: the topic "Norwegian Diaspora" neither has notable presence in reliable sources, nor can it be defended as a simple shorthand for "Norwegian emigration". Whether the article is deleted or renamed is irrelevant as this AfD has had the purpose of establishing that the topic "Norwegian diaspora" is not sufficiently notable to merit an article in this encyclopedia. ·Maunus· ƛ · 22:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Final summary from my view. In order to merit an article a topic, as described by the article title, must either be notable as evidenced by substantial coverage in reliable sources OR it must be permissible as a generally descriptive title of a phenomena that is of unquestionable notability. The keep voters have failed to show that the concept of "Norwegian diaspora" has been the subject of more than passing mention in sources about various other topics, and they have also proved unable to support the argument that "diaspora" is simply a short hand for the general concept of emigration from Norway.
 * The concept "diaspora" is has a complex history of usage, but at its core is clearly the notion that a people can continue to be a people even though it is dislocated in time and space from a place of origin. This is even implicit in the merriam-webster definition when it talks of "a people that is scattered". The question then becomes when a emigrant group continues to be part of the same people as where they originated and when they become a new people. This is the key point and it is crucial. R.A.N. would have us accept the notion that every and any group that has migrated from X place of origin can be referred to as "x diaspora" whether or not they continue to think of themselves as part of the same people as their ancestors in the place of origin. To this, I and others have argued that definitions, especially those in expert tertiary sources such as the Encyclopedia of Diaspora's and Diaspora theorists like William Saffran but also Merriam-Websters definition, clearly require continued identification with the original people to qualify for being called a diaspora. Now then, how do we find out whether an emigrant group consider them selves sufficiently part of an ancestral people to be labelled a diaspora? The policies of wikipedia allow only one way of doing this: by showing that the majority of reliable sources consider the migrant group to be a diaspora of another group. If we were to judge this ourselves based on our knowledge of the groups in question would be OR. If we were to use descriptions of the sentiments of x migrant group and based on these sources arrive at a conclusionof whether they have enough x-sentiment to be called a diaspora is SYNTH.
 * Only by shjowing that a majority of reliable sources consider x migrant group a diaspora can we remain in line with wikipedias WP:NOR, WP:RS and WP:V policies. The sources that R.A.N. have produced are very few in number and it is very dubious that they can be said to represent a majority of scholarship. Secondly they only use the word "diaspora" in passing and thus do not pass muster of the requirement of WP:NEO that "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term.."


 * Final summary from my view: Our policy WP:TITLE recommends short titles where possible and consistency among Wikipedia articles on similar topics. "Foo diaspora" is shorter than "foo emigration and emigrant communities." It is consistent with the usage of "diaspora" on other articles in Wikipedia, including articles on groups such as the Irish where most people agree there is a "diaspora" in the older sense, and in each case the article lede makes clear what the title describes:
 * "The Irish diaspora (Irish: Diaspóra na nGael) consists of Irish emigrants and their descendants..."
 * "The Albanian diaspora encompasses Albanians outside of Albania and Kosovo."
 * "The British diaspora consists of British people and their descendants who emigrated from the United Kingdom."
 * "The French diaspora consists of French emigrants and their descendants..."

Norwegian emigration, Norwegian emigrants and their descendants, and Norwegian diaspora communities are notable topics. It would be efficient, simple, short, in accord with Wikipedia practice for other similar articles, and in accord with our policy WP:TITLE that an article covering these topics have the name Norwegian diaspora. Sharktopus talk  04:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

RFC
The AFD has an RFC for both Swedish diaspora and Norwegian diaspora.
 * RFC:Use of the word diaspora in Wikipedia
 * This is completely disruptive. What's wrong with waiting to see how these AfDs pan out before starting an RFC like this?  Not unlike how you (Richard Arthur Norton) filed a DRV on the first deletion of Norwegian Diaspora, and then proceeded to recreate the page well before the DRV ended.  Are you trying to disrupt the encyclopedia or are you just plain impatient?Griswaldo (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Could we please discuss Wikipedia articles and policies not personalities? I think any discussion of the usage of diaspora should be in a public forum such as an RfC or the OR noticeboard, not on a randomly created new page. Sharktopus  talk  20:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I note that the above page has been moved to User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Use of the word diaspora in Wikipedia, so that it won't be deleted via G8. lifebaka++ 20:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I posted what I thought was a rather open description of our dispute at WP:OR/N. From an iPhone in a swaying taxi comes this inadeqyate notification, sorry. Sharktopus  talk  22:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you two User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) and User:Griswaldo really going to edit war over this on an AFD page?  He  iro  05:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I made one revert (and did not intend to make any more should it have been reversed). Hardly edit warring.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 05:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And for the record I made the revert because I had a look at concern of the other editor who tried fixing the formatting here twice now. The log page for the 21st is completely malformed in the TOC because of the two "RFC" sections RAN added.  See Articles_for_deletion/Log/2011_February_21.  You're right that it isn't the biggest deal in the world, but I can't for the life of me understand why it isn't allowed to be fixed.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 05:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 4
— Chacha gurl B (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete as synthesis or merge to Norwegian people#Historic migration out of Norway. The first sentence of the article is classic synthesis (i.e. putting two dicdef's together to arrive at new topic), and the rest of the article of ain't much better. I need to see evidence that more handful of reliable sources have made more than a passing reference to a "Norwegian dispora" before I'm inclined to believe this is a notable topic that deserves its own article. Yilloslime T C  23:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * CgB's arguments claiming 'racism' are ludicrous, but since everyone will hopefully ignore it and not let it affect their judgement of the other arguments on both sides, I won't bother addressing it. Grr. Trying not to read it. Anarchangel (talk) 09:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep It pretty much needs a rename. There just is not enough scholarly use of the title as it currently exists. And it is going to be pretty hard to come up with a name that isn't 10 words long. But the subject is almost empirically observable to be notable, and not just part of the emigration to the USA, either, but from as far back as the Viking expansion and the Swedish Empire. And also, the current title would make a good redirect, so killing it to remake the article later under a new name does not make sense either.
 * There are some absurd, upside down, opposite-day arguments against the RFC on the other AfD. 'People who make RFCs should have more patience' (no one usually bothers waiting for people to show up to RFCs; consequently AFDs that should have been RFCs are continually nominated). 'AfDs should be allowed to run their course to not interrupt the discussion about the articles' (RFCs are the proper place for discuss the content of articles; AfDs should only be discussions about titles that are (currently) impossible to make good articles out of). 'Letting people at AfD know about the RFCs is preventing people having a centralized discussion' (self explanatory: the RFC is all in one place, letting everyone know means everyone can join it all in one place). Pre-emptively adding arguments against. Anarchangel (talk) 09:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * speedy keep. If you have a better title under WP:NAME, suggest a move. I am aware that the term "diaspora" sees excessive use on Wikipedia. "Expatriate community" may be better. So, by all means move this to Norwegian expatriates or Norwegian expatriate community or something, but don't submit stuff to AfD that aren't AfDs. --dab (𒁳) 20:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * delete. I agree with User:Yilloslime's suggestion to "delete as synthesis or merge to Norwegian people#Historic migration out of Norway. The first sentence of the article is classic synthesis (i.e. putting two dicdef's ...".  There's no evidence here of a classic "diaspora", so specifically it is better to simply delete.  Merge any modicum of different info here to the "Historic migration out of Norway section" of the "Norwegian people" article, but then please simply delete this with no redirect. -- do  ncr  am  22:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Which part of "the movement, migration, or scattering of a people away from an established or ancestral homeland" is a synthesis when applied to Norway? WP:SYN says: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." Is it an original thought that Norwegians are people? Or that they migrated away from Norway? What in the definition of a diaspora makes it a synthesis when combined with Norwegians and not the other 244 peoples in Category:Diaspora. What makes Norwegians the exception? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Norwegian diaspora" is a coined, artificial, overly dramatic term. You are quoting one dictionary definition of diaspora, but the Jewish one comes first in a couple dictionaries that i looked at, and the term diaspora otherwise seems to me to best describe involuntary, forced dispersions of a people.  It is grandstanding to assert implicitly that Norway had that.  Probably is a misapplication of term diaspora to 235 or 240 or so of the other ones you assert the term might apply to, also.  Let's deal with this one first, where diaspora in common understanding of the term does not apply.  Merge and delete the incorrect, coined redirect, so, technically, DELETE.-- do  ncr  am  14:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * nobody disputes that there are Norwegian expatriates. The issue just seems to be that the term "Norwegian diaspora" does not happen to be applied to them. This can be remedied by a simple suggestion for a page move. I have no idea why this is even being discussed on AfD. The cause of the problem is that we have a category named Category:Diasporas, with lots of articles titled "$NATIONAL diaspora", so that this has become something of an on-wiki terminological magnet. It would be preferable to rename the "diasporas" category to "expatriate communities" or something. Again, this has nothing to do with deletion criteria, only with WP:NAME.
 * It is, however, not true that the term "Norwegian diaspora" is of on-wiki coinage. It is found in publications from 1986, 1980, 1973 and 1960. A single google search would have saved the submitter of this AfD from the embarassment of looking like a fool. The term "Norwegian expatriates" only gives marginally more hits. Nevertheless, a modest suggestion to move the page to Norwegian diaspora could have been a constructive contribution. Now can we please close down this thread and send interested parties to discuss wherever it is the page should reside on actual article talkpages? --dab (𒁳) 11:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason we are voting on this at AFD is that our friend R:A:N: has maintained throughout that it is a question of whether the topic is notable - not a question about the current articles title. So we are basically voting on whether the topic "Norwegian diaspora" is notable enough to have an article in it. As you realize the topic isn't notable, whereas the topic of Norwegian expatriate communities is. ·Maunus· ƛ · 11:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes but perhaps we can move beyond that now. I'm realizing now that I've been stuck arguing against RAN and co. while the POVs presented here by others who think the entry should be kept have been of a different, much more reasonable sort.  Initially I think it was right to oppose RAN's recreation of this page, and I think it is still reasonable to oppose the way that he and a couple of others want to apply the term "diaspora", but is that really about keeping or deleting the present content anymore?  I'm not sure it is.  I've changed my vote to one of indifference, as long as we can discuss a name change.Griswaldo (talk) 12:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * @Dab. "Norwegian immigrant community" does much better than either. Essentially I think you are correct.  Someone needs to close the AfD so we can move on to the name discussion.Griswaldo (talk) 11:43, 4 March 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.