Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pashtun Americans


 * 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. After three relistings, there appears to be a consensus in favour of keeping this article. Renaming can be done through the normal channels if desired. The Bushranger One ping only 23:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Pashtun Americans

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

For many reasons this article needs to be deleted. For example, the name "Pashtun Americans" is made up by an editor of Pakistani background who lives in Australia and who is now blocked indefinitely. I had to mention his information because he doesn't know about America. He copy pasted content from Afghan Americans and Pakistani Americans into this page and invented a new group of people who do not identify as such. There are no sources to back the name Pashtun American. In America people are identified by nationality, not by ethnicity, tribe or clan.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    20:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    20:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    20:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    20:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: The data source cited in the article supplies a number of speakers of Pashto. Is this really an article about Pashto speakers in the US and, if so, is that a notable topic? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Pashto speakers in the United States are roughly 50% of Afghan Americans or a small percent of Pakistani Americans. As we all know that English becomes the main language of everyone in America, there is no purpose in labelling people by what language they spoke in their former countries.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 07:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep/Rename: These kind of articles are encyclopedic. 16,000 is enough population to make article. Maybe article can be renamed to Pashtuns in America or Pashtun Community in USA which will increase scope of article and those Pashtuns from India, Pakistan and Afghanistan living in USA but not citizens of USA can be included in this article.-- Human 3015   TALK   22:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    22:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    22:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - The people do not self identify as Pashtun Americans, neither are they called Pashtun Americans by the government or by anyone else. So, it is a newly created term by a controversial editor who got blocked. Many ethnic Pashtuns may be offended by being labelled Pashtun Americans, instead of Afghan Americans or Pakistani Americans. It's an attempt to divide them based on ethnicity. It is also very complicated to verify and determine who actually is a Pashtun, many non-Pashtuns will be labelled as Pashtuns.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 07:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have stricken your !vote as you are nominator and you are not suppose to !vote, but you can comment. And yes, "Pashtun Americans" may not be a proper term here, thats why I suggested title Pashtun community in America. Any "XYZ community in America" is a valid and encyclopedic article. I am also agree on that images of people should not include in this article unless they self identify themselves as "Pashtun origin or Pashtun". Otherwise it is BLP violation to call them Pashtun if they do not self identify themselves as Pashtun. -- Human 3015   TALK   02:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There are probably millions of different ethnic groups living in America, are we suppose to create separate articles for each and all of them? If the answer is no then why create an article for ethnic Pashtuns? Why single them out?--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 04:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not exactly millions of different communities lives in USA. As per article Pashtun population is more than 16,000 in USA, but all of these are citizens of USA, there can be more Pashtuns IN USA who are not citizens of USA. This is enough population to create article on them. But they should not be grouped as "Pashtun Americans" because it is not official grouping, either they are grouped as "Afghan Americans" or "Pakistani Americans" or "Indian Americans" as per their origin in South Asia. So better title will be Pashtun community in the USA. -- Human 3015   TALK   11:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You should first learn what community is. No such Pashtun community exists in the United States. They only identify selves as Afghan Americans, Pakistani Americans or Indian Americans, and they are scattered all over the country. I didn't say there are millions of different communities, I said there could be millions of different ethnicities, tribes, clans, etc., I hope you know Pashtun is ethnicity and not nationality or a race. Again I ask, what makes ethnic Pashtuns special than the million of other ethnic groups living in America to have an article?--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 12:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please note that user:Krzyhorse22 is ethnic Hazara who don't want to keep such articles about Pashtuns, This article should be not deleted, It an Encyclopedic and Informative article that should be kept on Wikipedia. And let me say that It does not matter that the article is written by a block user, We should see what are written in the article --2.89.234.120 (talk) 17:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have stricken comment of obvious sock probably made as block evasion. Looking at contribution history of IP shows that it is obvious case. SPI will not be useful here as CU will not connect any user to IP. Moreover, it is case of WP:OUTING. Editor has said below that they have never declared their ethnicity on Wikipedia then revealing it will not be good though it can be a wrong guess.-- Human 3015   TALK   10:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , first of all you're evading blocks so your opinion cannot be counted. Second, I'm not ethnic Hazara, no where did I claim such.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per and articles mentioning "Pashtun American" identity  - this report says 100,000 Pashtun Americans (page 11, point 5)  —Мандичка YO 😜 18:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Just because some Pakistani editors used a wrong term in the past doesn't mean we must create a Wikipedia page for each of that wrong term. Creating a Wikipedia article for every wrongly used term causes confusion and misunderstanding. "Pashtun" is ethnic identity and "American" is nationality. It's not what others may wrongly call them, it's what they call their selves, which is Afghan Americans or Pakistani Americans. There are people who wrongly use Hindu American to refer to Americans who are from India, see also Sikh Americans for example. "Sikh" and "Hindu" are religious identities.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 18:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 11:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nominator states there are "many reasons" this article should be deleted, but it sounds like the central premise of their argument is that there is no community that self-identifies as "Pashtun Americans." However, a google search did, in fact, reveal sources that discuss a self-identified Pashtun community in America (see, e.g., this article from DAWN, this second article from DAWN, and this article in Newsweek, as well as other articles cited by other editors in this discussion). Therefore, I don't think deletion is appropriate here, but I do think this article should be renamed so that casual readers don't mistake this for an article about Americans living in Pashtunistan. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:53, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The article will be of low importance and relevance to most; however it's encyclopedic in nature and therefore completely legitimate in my opinion. Typical WP:BIAS towards minority groups. Aeonx (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2015 (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.