Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistani Fijian


 * 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 All,  Nakon  05:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Pakistani Fijian

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Per comments by myself, Guettarda, and R45 at Articles for deletion/Pakistani Trinidadian. All of these articles have an extremely similar form of original research, which is why I have made this a bundled nomination: they effectively invent Pakistani populations out of thin air from But in reality very few such people identify as Pakistani (Adil Ray notwithstanding), nor do sociologists who study their communities identify them as Pakistani. Populations of actual Pakistani nationals and their descendants in all of these countries are miniscule and fail WP:N.
 * 1) Muslims of any South Asian descent
 * 2) People whose ancestors emigrated from northwestern parts of British India decades before there was any thought of such a country as Pakistan

In short, there are no non-trivial, reliable sources on these topic. Searching for terms like "Pakistani South Africans", "Pakistani Kenyans", etc. just gets you Wikipedia articles and blog/forum posts. Searching for "Pakistanis in South Africa" gets you cricket news. There's one minor lawsuit brought by Pakistani international students against an institute in Fiji. A website AfricaIntelligence.com makes wild claims of 40,000 Pakistanis in Kenya in the context of an article about global terrorism, which you'll find in no other source. Etc. You can see all the searches I tried in the hidden box above. cab (talk) 01:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions.  cab (talk) 01:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions.  cab (talk) 01:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tanzania-related deletion discussions.  cab (talk) 01:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  cab (talk) 01:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions.  cab (talk) 01:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - original research, with no notability, as shown through the nominator's exhaustive searches. - Biruitorul Talk 06:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as OR per nom. --Michael Johnson (talk) 06:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm a little torn on this one.  On the one hand, yes these people migrated before Pakistan existed and probably don't self identify as Pakistani-Fijians.  On the other hand, there are articles on all of thse groups:  South Indians in Fiji,Gujaratis in Fiji,Sikhs in Fiji,Hinduism in Fiji,Arya Samaj in Fiji, Islam in Fiji and Fiji Hindi.  I suppose the best fit would be "Islam in Fiji", or perhaps renaming it "South Asian Muslims in Fiji". TastyCakes (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Islam in Fiji is pretty much synonymous with South Asian Muslims already, and that article has plenty of relevant sources whereas Pakistani Fijian has none&mdash;a merge would just degrade the quality and a redirect would make little sense because "Pakistani Fijian" isn't even a real-world term. I'm perfectly amenable to new articles like Urdu language in Fiji, Sindhis in Fiji, Kashmiris in Fiji, etc. if someone can find sources, but this article is just a piece of boilerplate junk that was created in order to puff up the Pakistani diaspora template to make it look big and important like Indian diaspora template, and has nothing to contribute to any of those potential topics. cab (talk) 00:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * CAB, just to remind you, the actual population figures that are listed in the infobox do not randomly include "people of Pakistani origin" (which I think is your conception). They only include the "actual" number of Pakistanis in those countries (and you can refer to the Pakistani diaspora page for reference), and I do not think that figures like 2,500 Pakistanis in South Africa or a thousand Pakistanis in Tanzania or at least 2000 Pakistanis in Kenya are "miniscule" (provided with the fact that all these pages also have at least 1 notable person from the community) especially when that "big and important" Indian template you seem to be talking about has useless pages like Indians in New Caledonia (talking about roughly 500 people), Indian Mexican (uh....400 people), Indians in Iran (supposedly 1000 but no mention anywhere), Indians in Vietnam (320 people). Please use logic instead of recieving an emotional setback and thinking that this is another "Pakistani conspiracy" against India, which all Indians think. Regarding the original research, such as those specific "people of Pakistani origin", though I won't dismiss the fact that many people did and do trace their roots to modern-day Pakistan ( i know a south african guy who supposedly says his ancestors came from Hyderabad), I think it will be appropriate to arrange the removal of that content as there are lack of sources. Just deleting those pages on the basis of thinking that they have been designed as a reply to Indian populations is not rational.


 * Furthermore, the statement written on the Pakistani South African page just seemed like a generalisation which was basically saying that there are a fair bunch of lads who have a relation with Pakistan considering they're ancestors migrated from there (and people did come to South Africa from present-day Pakistan), but anyways, I've removed that since thats the main topic of the heated issue. At the moment, I think i'll support the deletion only for the Pakistani Fijian page.Teckgeek (talk) 15:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The size of these populations is not the main problem. The real problem is that they "fail WP:N" as I wrote above, which means, in clearer terms, that no scholars, journalists, or other reliable sources have written anything about them. You can find lots of books which talk about Indians in Vietnam, which is why that article is not going to be deleted: . Can you point us to a single book chapter, newspaper column, or academic journal submission which discusses the Pakistani community (not just examples of individual guys who say they're Pakistanis) in Kenya/Tanzania/SA? cab (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to let you know, I've added some stuff about the food and cuisine of the Pakistanis in South Africa, and the website where I got it from has been listed in references. There you go- the page itself says in the introductory section that "there is also a fair sized Pakistani community in South Africa."121.222.21.53 (talk) 02:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There are two problems. One of which is that you just copied the text off that website and pasted it into the Wikipedia article, which is a copyright violation. I cannot emphasise enough in asking you, please do not do that again. The second is that this is still quite trivial as far as coverage goes: a couple of paragraphs of restaurant reviews on a government website. For example, consider another small migrant community in Africa, Filipinos in Nigeria. That article has 14 different newspaper citations, and more are easily located (e.g. ). Or Chinese people in Ghana, which also has lots of sources and one aspiring professor is even writing his PhD thesis about them. This illustrates the minimum standard of coverage we look for on articles about immigrant groups --- multiple (i.e. not just one) instances of non-trivial (i.e. not just a couple of paragraphs) coverage in reliable sources (where academic journals, books chapters, and newspaper columns are all highly preferred to random websites). The "Pakistani South African", Pakistanis in Kenya, and Pakistanis in Tanzania articles are still well short of such standards, and I don't see any evidence that it can reach them based on the sources available. cab (talk) 04:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "Coverage" is not really of a concern; Wikipedia is all about factual sources, whether you find them one way or the other. Additionally, I have also managed to find some proof of Pakistanis in Tanzania which has been added to the article with the respective sources also given. This is yet an outright example that the research you performed to get info on these various topics was either rough or careless or you didn't take the initiative to fully explore relevant texts. Teckgeek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.101.199 (talk) 05:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, in fact, "coverage" is a very large concern. Wikipedia is about summarising significant secondary sources about topics, not cobbling together one-word mentions from sources which are mainly devoted to other topics. Your MSN Encarta link mentions Pakistanis in a laundry list of ethnic groups in one sentence. The EveryCulture and Noor-Al-Islam links mentions Pakistanis in two sentences. They don't have any discussion on the community beyond "yes, they exist", "they're Muslims", and "they own businesses". And your final link again does not discuss the Pakistani community in Tanzania except in one paragraph; the rest consist of summarizing some gentleman's speech about Pakistan's economic development. This is not even remotely enough material for an article, it is worth a short mention on Demographics of Tanzania at best. cab (talk) 06:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a minor community we are talking about - you don't expect me to find a colossal manuscript, do you? I can see that it is quite easy to sit behind a keyboard and proudly evaluate all these points. Indeed: Yes, they exist. They're Muslims. They own businesses. Well, guess what? This is an encyclopedia mate - we include any fact that is relevant to a specific topic, and those "yes-they-exist" quotes do warrant the fact that there are Pakistanis living in Tanzania or residing in Tanzania - and therefore we come to the conclusion that they are a distinct ethnic group (although a small one) just like any other small ethnic group is.


 * You were first saying that there are absolutely no links to match the article, and now that I am trying to pile up certain quotes, you've suddenly changed your stance along the biased attitute I could have expected.


 * Wikipedia is about summarising significant secondary sources about topics, not cobbling together one-word mentions from sources which are mainly devoted to other topics. Please provide me any set of rule on Wikipedia that clearly says that each and every article that is published on this encyclopedia requires some "whole independent, seperate page" from another website; because you're the first user I've seen so far manufacturing this self-made policy. I am also assuming that you have heard of a Stub before.


 * Last of all, if you are really concerned about when it comes to sources, I believe you haven't reviewed the Indian Mexican article yet - pure original research by the looks of it. All I could find in Google was stuff about the native Mexican Indians. Teckgeek —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.169.175 (talk) 11:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for a new article about Iranian Balouch in Hyderabad. There is a large thriving comuunity consisting of at a few thousand people living in present day Hyderabad (on Gul Shah Bokhari road) that trace their origins to what is part of Irani Balouchistan. But very few written words can be found about these ppl because of illiteracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChJameel (talk • contribs) 00:12, 22 April 2009 (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.