Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peruvians in the United Kingdom


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Peruvians in the United Kingdom

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

Small group of people with no assertion of notability. All of the sourced material in this article is already covered at Latin Americans in the United Kingdom. Cordless Larry (talk) 03:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with the nominator. These "Fooian Barian" articles, about people from country Foo living in country Bar, keep turning up and they very seldom consist of anything more than census data- and this one is no exception. Trivial intersections of groups of people like this one are not notable. Reyk  YO!  05:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep On the other hand, we shouldn't assume that all such articles are crap. The author of this one, Stevvvv4444, is a longtime contributor whose articles about different communities in Britain have been pretty solid.   Although there are some editors out there who crank out Fooian-Barian pages for their own amusement, Stevo has isn't one of them, concentrating instead on the UK.  A good Fooian-Barian (or in this case, Peroovian-Baritian) article can be written, as witness Peruvian American.  Mandsford (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether it is well written or not, the issue is notability. The article fails to establish why Peruvians in the UK are a notable group. Peruvian Americans are documented in plenty of scholarly research but I can't find the same for Peruvians in the UK. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Latin American Briton, since the present sources (and those I found with a rather cursory search) don't indicate to me that the topic's notable enough for a separate article. Happy to reconsider if someone produces more sources. Also, several points to Mandsford for the Foobar pun! Olaf Davis (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I fully understand why the article has been nominated due lack of content and what you see as relevance, however many other articles about such communities have managed to expand succesfully. An example being Bolivians in the United Kingdom, the population of this group of people is much less than the number of Peruvians in the UK, I am sure much more information could be found to add to this article. I have tried improving many other such articles, such as Colombians in the United Kingdom. I more or less changed this to this  all by myself, I would appreciate some help with possible source material as well as edits to this culturally significant articles. Thanks. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Both of those subjects turned out to have potential sources, which were used to expand them. If I was aware of such sources for this article, I wouldn't have nominated it for deletion. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  --  I 'mperator 22:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep on the understanding that the article creator is serious about expanding it into a full article, taking in good faith assertions that sources are likely to be present in the finished product. I'm normally wary about giving AfD candidates more time (usually they stay crap afterwards) but this is an exception. Should no sources be added, we can always re-nominate. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: as requested, I've had another look at the article, and I'm sticking with Weak Keep for now. This article does now contain encyclopedic information, but a lot of it is statistical information from the census and much of the rest is general information applying to South America in general. Nevertheless, this does have a place somewhere in Wikipedia, the only question is whether it should be this article or another article. Since a merger in this case is complicated enough to warrant a discussion in its own right, I think this AfD should be closed and anyone who wants a merger can propose that separately. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep to give him some time as requested, with the possibility of renomination in a few months if it doesn't turn out possible to expand as hoped. JohnCD (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: as requested, I have also had another look and am sticking with Weak Keep, my reason being exactly the same as Chris Neville-Smith's just above (thanks, Chris, for putting it so well!) JohnCD (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject is encyclopedic and an established editor has asked for time to expand the material, WP:DEADLINE. --J.Mundo (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I also had a another look; the article has improved and the sources are enough to establish general notability.  J mundo 01:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jmundo. --dicttrshp (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, I have already cleaned up the population section, expanded it and introduced more sources. Whilst in general improving the layout and citations of the article. I have also added a section about culture. I would appreciate any feed backs, and would like to know whether this is enough for the deletion tag to be removed or if more work is needed. If these changes are not seen a sufficient, I strongly suggest you take a look at the opposite of this article British Peruvians which has even fewer information, no sources at all, yet no ones seems to have cited it as a problem. Thanks Stevvvv4444 (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Although the article has been improved (and well done for that, Stevvvv) the fact that most of the sources are about Latin America in general rather than Peru leaves me still of the opinion that while Latin American Briton is a sufficiently notable topic for its own article, Peruvians in the United Kingdom is not. The only sources that are specifically about Peru are the CIA page (which doesn't mention Britain at all) and the Peru Earthquake wiki which looks distinctly unlike a reliable source.
 * But, since the AfD only needs to decide about deletion and not merging, I'll leave this here for now and move to the article's talk page. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep the article has been significantly expanded since the AfD nomination --Cyfal (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per improvements made since the nomination per WP:AFTER and precedent set for inclusion of this type of article.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Latin Americans in the United Kingdom. Topic is so narrow that having its own article seems daft. Stifle (talk) 11:13, 17 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.