Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgian British

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. MBisanz ^talk 04:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Georgian British

Article is about a non-notable group of 551 people. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article was previously part of a mass deletion nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afghan British, which closed as "no consensus". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering, what makes a group of humans notable. 551 thousand? million? But the article as it is now can be deleted without remorse - for context issues. It does not explain if "Georgian origin" refers to Georgian ethnicity (itself a mosaic picture) or just "being from there" (Abkzazes, Russians, Jews, Armenians etc.). The country broke up and shrank through ethnic conflicts, causing emigration among all factions, so at least some definition is required. NVO (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For several months, we've seen a series of ethnicity articles which were written virtually without content. This is one of them. The typical article goes something like this: "Fooian Barian refers to persons in the country of Bar who are of Fooian descent." It is accompanied by an infobox which identifies the religion of the Fooian Barians as the most common religion in the country of Foo, the languages they speak as the languages of Foo and Bar, and the place where they can be found in Bar as the most populous regions of Bar. In other words, the article tells the reader virtually nothing they couldn't have guessed from the title. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With 200 nations on Earth, I guess the random combinations would be 40,000 -- which would include such "man's man" articles like "American Americans". Metro90 describes it correctly. The ones that I'd really really like to see are "Georgians in Georgia" (which would be about foreign residents of Tbilisi and Atlanta); Romanian Panamanian; Guinean French Guianian; and Irish-Iraqi-Iranian. Mandsford (talk) 03:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent reliable source to establish notability.--Boffob (talk) 06:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible keep and block proposing editor for disruption of our project. Badagnani (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, you're saying that I should be blocked for suggesting that an article might not be notable? I'm also worried by your use of "our project". There is no ownership of articles on Wikipedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the hilarious and very good reasons given by Metropolitan90 and Mandsford. I'm not sure when an immigrant group passes into notability, but what's in this article falls far below that threshold. RayAYang (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I should probably note that my description of the typical poorly written Ethnicity Nationality article was inspired by another editor's comments on a similar AfD, although there have been so many of these articles up for AfD in recent months that I wouldn't be able to locate which one and who to credit. Also, I want to be clear that I have no objection to articles like Irish American or Italian American, which deal with notable ethnic groups and contain actual sources, information, and paragraphs of prose. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mandsford. Inclusion would mean inclusion of all other such combinations, and adds no value to WP. --lightspeedchick (talk) 23:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Metro90 and Mandsford said it all, really, and said it so well I "borrowed" their arguments and used them here. You can't just take two random countries, put them in a blender, pour it all into a mould and call the resulting mess an article. Reyk _YO! 04:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.