Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistani Trinidadian


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Pakistani Trinidadian

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

This article is without sources, reliable or otherwise. As such, it appears to be either original research and/or synthesis. The author has been banned, and his most recent article: India and state terrorism was deleted for the same reasons. Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 04:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Whilst no doubt it exists, I see no sources to write this article. So, that's a delete from me.--Scott Mac (Doc) 08:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This article was recently updated to include a source regarding the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, which did not support the original and/or unsourced content rearding the lineage of Trinidadians. This article seems to be another deliberate attempt to introduce political information in a way which is not consistent with Wikipedia guidelines. -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 10:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at the amount of info that has been freely expressed, it is a possibility that the creator could be a "Pakistani Trinidadian" himself. It is quite true that alot of the stuff written here has not been verified as of yet. This logic howver becomes further irrationalised, especially when I clicked up on the Indo-Trinidadian page, which also does not cite any sources and seems purely original research. I think both these articles should be brought into question. Ronaldochamp (talk) 10:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't discount that possibility, however, the Indo-Trinidadian page contains references, as shown here:, as well as a list of notable people. It has also been tagged for improved references. If you have serious concerns, please consider nominating the article yourself. -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff)  10:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nominating the Indo-Trinidadian page would be an utter waste of the Afd process. If you do basic research you would know that the Indo-Trinidadian's make up 40% of the population in Trinidad, have had a vast cultural, economic and political impact on the island. The article needs work, but that doesn't put it up for nomination for deletion. --   R45    talk! 17:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete It's completely unsourced, and written in a vague style that indicates that the author really doesn't know anything about people of "Pakistani descent" who live in Trinidad.  We're told that some "trace their ancestry" to people "who immigrated to the Carribean during the 1800s" (before Pakistan was created out of the Moslem sections of British India); and that "the majority of those...were predominantly Muslim by religion" (good guess, and I'm glad that it's clarified that Muslim means their religion rather than their hair-color)..."although a sizeable portion were Hindu as well" (the ones who weren't Muslim); they celebrate Indian Arrival Day and Eid and Divali.  Muslims in Trinidad (some of whom might be of Pakistani descent, of course) are in an Muslim organization.  My favorite vague statement is that "Although the primary culture of those who descend from the early settlers has long been lost" Pakistani Trinidadians have "managed to stick on to...(Pakistani) food, art and music".   And to wrap it up, language-wise "most predominantly now speak Trinidadian languages" (makes life easier in Trinidad) while a "fair" minority "may be able to converse fluently in Urdu."  Or not. Mandsford (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Mandsford, I think it is kind of unwise to attack the info that has been inserted in the article- who knows, it could be true. It would of course, be rational to focus more on the lack of sources in the article and I am now going to try to get some more stuff for this from the net if I can. If I still fail to find direct relevant pieces of info, I think that chances seem to be bleak. Teckgeek (talk) 01:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate what you're saying, but that's the problem-- making up for a lack of knowledge with statements that seem likely to be true, starting with the population of "Pakistani Trinidadians" (small community). People in Pakistan are predominantly Muslim, and therefore Pakistanis abroad are likely to acknowledge  some recognizable Muslim holidays; Urdu is spoken in Pakistan, so its likely that a fair minority of Pakistanis in X-land can "converse fluently" in Urdu; etc.   It reminds me of that scene in School of Rock where Jack Black is talking to the parents about what he's been teaching, and he starts naming things that seem likely "they're learning English...and Spanish...and French...and uh, algebra..." Mandsford (talk) 13:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence for anything in this article, and the usual barrages of Google/GBooks/GScholar searches utterly fail to turn up any evidence. Wikipedia does not work on the principle of "who knows, it could be true". cab (talk) 03:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Teckgeek - regarding "who knows, it could be true"...Simple answer: I know; it's not true. Guettarda (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Per my comment to Teckgeek above. Also, it concerns me that populations of alleged "Pakistani Foolanders" all over the globe are effectively being invented out of thin air on the basis that Fooland had some migration from South Asia in the past, and some of those migrants were Muslims or came from territory that became a part of Pakistan centuries after they left. "Pakistani Trinidadian", "Pakistani Fijian", Pakistanis in Kenya, Pakistanis in Tanzania, along with other articles that have been deleted, are examples of this ... cab (talk) 03:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  cab (talk) 03:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions.  cab (talk) 03:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions.  cab (talk) 03:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per Some Pakistani Trinidadians can trace their ancestry to indentured labourers who immigrated to the Carribean during the 1800s. That's historical revisionism at best.  "Indian", "East Indian", "Indo-Trinidadian", "dougla"...all of these terms have currency for the descendants of indentured immigrants from the subcontinent.  Not "Pakistani".  Most immigrants came from Uttar Pradesh or Bihar, with a significant minority of south Indians (presumably mostly Tamils).  There were very few Panjabis or Sindhis of any stripe, and they few that they were intermarried with people from other parts of the subcontinent.  If there were more than a handful of Indo-Trinis who could actually trace their roots to Sindh or Pakistani Panjab, I'd know about it.  The remainder of the article is about Trinidadian Muslims.  That's totally distinct.  Sure, there are a handful of Trinidadians with roots in post-Partition Pakistan (I had a neighbour who was from Pakistan), but there aren't a distinct ethnic group, and they aren't notable as a group.  I'd call it more wishful thinking than hoax, but there's no substance to this article.  Guettarda (talk) 04:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - When the British brought indentured laborers from India, there was no Pakistan at the time. Although I do not doubt that some of the East Indians brought may have come from modern day Pakistan, there was no "Pakistan" at the time. This article is completely un-sourced and with good reason. I've never heard of the term Pakistani Trinidadian (I was educated in Trinidad). This is a fabricated article out of nothing. There is no substance in the article whatsoever (mentions of Islam and the broad East Indian indentureship which are covered in Indo-Trinidadian. --   R45    talk! 17:07, 11 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.