Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore Tamils


 * 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. With no prejudice against renaming as suggested by multiple participants here, if a consensus on a title can be reached on the talk page. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Singapore Tamils

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A redundant to Indian Singaporeans, not a notable ethnic group. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 12:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 12:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 12:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 12:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect I think redirected the article maybe better.  S A 1 3 B r o  12:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Indian Singaporeans, plausible search term. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep the article, Singapore Tamils are one of the major ethnic group in Singapore, Tamil bring one of it's official languages, even if you think it's not a major ethnic group, no where in Wikipedia says that you can delete an article based on just it's not a major ethnic group how small or big the ethnic group it is. if you feel it's justifiable to delete Singapore Tamils, then will you delete Malayali Australian and hundreds of different articles relates to various people groups to be deleted as well? Winnan Tirunallur (talk) 05:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If there is no significant coverage or if the content has ben already covered, then we don't keep an article. If you feel other articles have been unjustifiably kept, please nominate them for deletion as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Indian Singaporeans This is content fork and should be deleted per WP:DEL5. The content is already covered in Indian Singaporeans and I guess a redirect is fine here. I honestly don't see the need to keep a redirect hanging around. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Tamil is distinct from the rest of India (like all other languages that united under the Indian banner). Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Tamil is an official language of Singapore. That should qualify the group for notability.-- obi2canibe talk contr 15:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. The Tamils ave been classified as Indian Singaporeans (See Demographics_of_Singapore). Also the article is a WP:POVFORK which simply duplicates material at Indian Singaporeans --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * How the Singaporean government classifies its population doesn't dictate which articles are created on Wikipedia. All that matters is whether reliable sources discuss Singapore Tamils, which they do.


 * It's common for one large ethnic group to be sub-divided into smaller groups e.g Asian Americans and Chinese Americans or British Asian and British Indian. There is no reason why we can't have both Indian Singaporeans and Singapore Tamils. And as this article makes clear, not all Singapore Tamils are from India, many are from Sri Lanka. The article does have issues but none that merit deletion.-- obi2canibe talk contr 21:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, we divide larger ethnic groups, but this is a not needed here when the vast majority of information can be included/or is duplicated in another article (See WP:NOPAGE). The thing is that Tamils in Singapore (whether from Sri Lanka or India) are still classified as Indian Singaporeans where the term "Indian" is an ethnic term. The article Indian Singaporeans makes it clear that it cover both Tamils from India as well as from Sri Lanka. When an article already covers a topic, it becomes a WP:POVFORK to create another without a clear need. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * There is a clear need - Indian Singaporeans is a very large article (nearly 80kB) and is good candidate for WP:SPINOUT. Tamils make up the largest part of "Indian" Singaporeans, therefore the first logical article for spin off is Singapore Tamils. The issues with duplicated content can be overcome by summarising the content in Indian Singaporeans. There are issues with Singapore Tamils but these can be overcome.-- obi2canibe talk contr 15:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Tamil is an official language of Singapore, and Tamils are one of the majot ethnic group.--Kanags (talk) 09:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment for those who are not familiar with Singapore See Demographics_of_Singapore In Singapore the major ethnic groups are Chinese, Malays and Indians (and Tamils are a subgroup of Indians). We don't have articles about sub-groups because the most sources study Indians as a whole. More importantly, . --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep there are articles do exists for other sub-groups such as Sri Lankans in Singapore etc.. Also Singaporean Indians are quiet distinct from Tamil Nadu expatriates in Singapore who are recent migrants has cultural differences between Singaporean Indian, and numerous than latter.Winnan Tirunallur (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No need to vote again. Please see WP:NOPAGE and WP:POVFORK. When you created Singapore Tamils you copied content without attribution from Indian Singaporeans. Sri Lankans in Singapore are a separate nationality - the government classifies them as "others", not Indian. But the Tamils form the vast majority of Indian Singaporeans and have never been counted as anything other than Indian. Tamil Nadu expatriates in Singapore are not a notable group - in fact, I have always seen sources discussing them as Indian Singaporeans. If we don't have sources, we can't have an article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The article need to be kept for reasons: 1. Indian Singaporeans article clearly mentions it's just about Singapore Citizens of Indian descent, it doesn't mentions anything about Other Tamil people living in Singapore who possess Indian and Sri Lankan citizens. 2. There are significant difference among Indian Singaporeans and Other Tamils. 3. There are about 400,000 Other Tamils living in Singapore who are not counted in Indian Singaporeans article. 4. Also for your note, Sinhalese and Sri Lankan Tamil descent Singaporeans Also counted as Indian Singaporeans by Singapore government. 5. NRIs from Tamil Nadu are existing as separate community of sort in Singapore, though there is thin line of difference between Indian Singaporeans Tamils and Singapore Tamil Migrants from Tamil Nadu.


 * Winnan Tirunallur (talk) 06:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You are not getting the points. We don't create a new article unless absolutely necessary. In addition, you citation doesn't state that "Singapore Tamils" are NOT "Indian Singaporeans".The article as it is now contains a bunch of WP:OR. I will explain below. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment about Undefined scope The article claims to be: Singapore Tamils refers to Tamil speaking people of Singapore, predominantly migrated to Singapore in recent times, who were distinct from Tamil speaking native Singaporeans Firstly this is not cited in any reliable source. Secondly if the article is about recent immigrants from Tamil Nadu, then it should be at Tamil Nadu diaspora. The content of the article is not significant - half of it is duplicated from Indian Singaporeans and the other half is WP:OR. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 12:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not at all the same as Indian Singaporeans. Perhaps rename to Tamil Diaspora in Singapore.--Yellow Diamond (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If it is about the Tamil Diaspora in Singapore, then add the content to Tamil_diaspora. That has more content than this article. If the article grows, then propose a WP:SPLIT. Per WP:NOPAGE, I don't see why need a WP:POVFORK at the moment. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if this is really a POVFork, but I'd support a merge.Yellow Diamond (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect as a content fork, and a breach of WP:NOR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Articles is not a breach of WP:NOR, I have added enough citation to justify Singapore Tamil community is existing one, the word is also. Here is the reference from National Board of Libraries (Singapore), Tamil community in Singapore includes both Indian, and Sri Lankan origin Tamil, it also include earlier migrants and recent ones. But the article Indian Singaporean refers only Indian origin Tamils who migrated to Singapore earlier. So, I suggest keep the article and help to improve it. Winnan Tirunallur (talk) 05:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not true. Quote from Indian Singaporeans "Singapore's Indian community is characterised by an ethnic Tamil majority (54.18%) and a large number of smaller groups. Ethnic Tamils in Singapore include both Tamils from India and Sri Lankan Tamils". Indian Singaporeans covers both Indian Tamils and Sri Lankan Tamils. It also included the recent migrants (See "Contemporary period: 1990s – present"). At this point your article is a redudant content fork. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Then why you have mentioned earlier Sri Lankans are categorized as other ethnic groups earlier. Hope you clarify things better rather conflicting your own views. Winnan Tirunallur (talk) 06:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh for goodness sake, "Sri Lankan" refers to a nationality in this context. Recent migrants from Sri Lanka in Singapore (who are Sinhalese) are NOT classified are Indians. They are classified as "others". But earlier migrants from Ceylon (as it was then known) were Tamils and they were classified as Indians. The article about Sri Lankans in Singapore it badly written an unsourced. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The Singapore Department of Statistics defines 'Indians' as a 'race' (or 'ethnic group'), comprising "persons of Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi or Sri Lankan origin such as Tamils, Malayalis, Punjabis, Bengalis, Singhalese etc this is from Indian Singaporean article. You are contradicting your view once again. :( it's seems you just don't want article on Singapore Tamils sub-group among Indians, but seems okay with other Sub groups. Winnan Tirunallur (talk) 03:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * There are no double standards. What you are not realising is that we don't have articles about individual ethnicities titled Sinhalese in Singapore, Punjabis in Singapore, Bengalis in Singapore. We only have Sri Lankans in Singapore and Indians in Singapore (which was later moved to Indian Singaporeans but it still one article). By a long standing consensus we do have articles about Nationality intersecting Nationality, provided a significant coverage exists. But we don't create individual ethnicity pages if the information is already covered in other articles. This is called a content fork and it not useful. Malayali Australians which you cited is another good example of a content fork (and it should be redirected/merged as well). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There are no such articles on any of these sub-groups in Singapore because they are bundled together. This is an encyclopaedic article being discussed, not an exercise in WP:BLUDGEONing a single editor because you're pushing the envelope in order to challenging that editor. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: As per Kanags, "Tamil is an official language of Singapore, and Tamils are one of the majority ethnic group".Shankar2001 (talk) 08:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, whilst there is significant overlap between Indian Singaporeans and Tamils in Singapore, these are still distinct concepts and an article on Tamils in Singapore (and Tamil language and culture in the country) is definately a legit article subject. --Soman (talk) 11:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  23:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources have been shown on this article that Tamils are regarded as separate from native Indians in Singapore. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 08:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sources have been shown on this article that Tamils are regarded as separate from native Indians in Singapore? Where? I saw this which mentions "Singapore Tamils" and on reading the article it uses "Indians" not Tamils. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please note Tamils are defined in Wikipedia as "Tamils, are an ethnic group who speak Tamil as their mother tongue....."; they are a sub-group of native Indians in Singapore. You don't need word to word something to define as "Tamils".Shankar2001 (talk) 05:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - arguments provided seem to point towards this group being both distinct and notable Spiderone  09:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm not a huge fan of WP:OTHERCRAP arguments, but in this case, there is quite a bit of other crap. Seems overall like a relevant demographic classification. Timothy Joseph Wood  13:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not an article about demographics, but that of 'ethnicity'. While there may be arguments for a SPIN-OFF article, the entire article was lifted from the Indian Singaporeans article without any form of discussion. I fail to see what cats have to do with whether an article is merited or not: they're categories, and do not serve to define articles. WP:OTHERSTUFF cuts both ways. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:28, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ethnicity is a demographic classification? And the category was provided as a list of examples of similar articles, for example, that we have a 35k article on all 15k Eurasians in Singapore. When there are a half million Tamils, I find it hard to believe that a full article isn't warranted in principle. Having said that, I wouldn't be opposed at all to draftifying it if the creator wants to beef it up some, and perhaps request input from related WikiProjects. Timothy Joseph Wood  15:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect as sufficient given the similarities. SwisterTwister   talk  04:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, better renamed to Singaporean Tamils. This is a concept distinct from Indian Singaporeans, which include a significant number of non-Tamil people such as Punjabis. Lysimachi (talk) 19:10, 27 December 2016 (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.