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. Hut 8.5 21:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bahamian British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article on this topic was deleted after discussion in 2008. There still seems to be a lack of significant coverage of the topic, and the sourced material in this stub (a single population figure) can be better covered at British African-Caribbean people. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not notable, involves a small number of people, and I agree with proposer that it could be added to British African-Caribbean people. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not Delete there are similar pages to this that still remain on Wikipedia without being targeted and secondly Bahamian British is not only Black people. It is ignorant and racist to assume this. CreateBahamas (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom. less than 1800 people is not likely to be a notable group on it's own. Best dealt with in the wider topic. I realize not everyone in or from the wonderful country of the Bahamas is black, but nearly all are and we need to have topics that are discussed in RS. Posting at ANi is likely not going to get the support the article creator was looking for. I'd suggest merging material into the larger topic before this gets deleted or turned into a redirect. Legacypac (talk) 22:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Then let it get deleted, because you have pages with Aruban Americans and other groups that are very small but still exist. If this is going to go and the rest wont then let it be. I have not the time with the nonsense displayed in this community CreateBahamas (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now. The page creator is somewhat persuasive here. Looking at the other pages in the Nav box, there is a definite pattern and some useful info in each page. Yes the population is small but we can't expect tons of sources beyond statistics. Perhaps we should consider these pages as a group. If they are not individually suitable, grouping the info together into a bigger page may make some sense. At least this page answers the question - how many Bahamians are in the UK? Legacypac (talk) 04:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The population figures are already reported in the articles British African-Caribbean people and Foreign-born population of the United Kingdom. Are they the sort of pages that you have in mind, Legacypac? It's worth noting that other AfDs about very small immigrant groups, where there is no material beyond population size, have resulted in deletion. See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Djiboutians in the United Kingdom, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Djiboutian Americans, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Djiboutians in the Netherlands, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dutch people in France, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austrians in France, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croats in the United Kingdom, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indonesian British, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Dominicans, etc. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Cordless Larry, you are obviously on top of the issue. The fact you nominated some of those pages should satisfy the User:CreateBahamas their page is not being targeted specially. I'd prefer to be a grouped nom of the other similar pages in the nav.box so they can be considered together. I'd support deletion of the group and will mildly support this deletion as a one off since we are here. Legacypac (talk)

I have done grouped AfDs for these types of articles in the past, Legacypac, and the response from commenters has generally been that the articles should be nominated individually. However, that was probably because I wasn't discriminating enough in what I grouped together. I will have another go when I get time. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I've done grouped noms and gotten the same reaction. You can't win for trying. Legacypac (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as basically empty. I think that piecemeal is just fine on these articles, although the arguments are the same. --Bejnar (talk) 08:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: notable X + notable Y != notable Z. DrStrauss talk 12:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - if we were to do articles on every group of immigrants from one county to another, that would be over 37,000 articles. That being said, if there was something unique and notable about people from the Bahamas living in the UK, you'd expect to see some coverage, which isn't shown here. Even then, this could be a sentence in the Diaspora article. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:22, 10 July 2017 (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.