Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spanish Briton

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. I encourage talk page discussion on the renaming of this article as suggested below. — Scientizzle 19:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish Briton

Spanish Briton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

1) Neologism (see WP:Neologism - the term 'Spanish Briton' does not occur anywhere on Google except in this article and references derived from it - it is therefore a 'non-topic' 2) Therefore , it is a form of original research (WP:NOT#OR) as an article has been spun-out of a non-topic 3) Article consists of a number of unrelated and usubstantiated statements; the only references relate to Catherine of Aragon and her family and some recent census figures. If there is a topic here at all, it is covered in Category:Spanish Britons. Therefore, Delete. Smerus (talk) 06:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Don't know what neologism has to do with this article. It isn't meant to be a "neologism." And there is such a thing as a Spanish Briton. A Google search isn't required. Article is referenced. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 09:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, mere assertion won't do. What is a 'Spanish Briton'? It may not be 'meant to be a neologism', but it is one all the same. The term does not exist outside of this article. The 'references' in the article are trivial and not about the topic of 'Spanish Britons'.--Smerus (talk) 10:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Well according to this legit ref, "Spanish London" exists. If there can be "Spanish London" , a fortiori, there can be "Spanish Briton." --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 10:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Now you know that's not the case. 'Spanish London' might relate to Spaniards in London who are not Britons in any way - maybe Spanish restaurants or Spanish flamenco troupes - or, as in the case of the present reference, Catherine of Aragon (who might possibly have been categorisable as English, but certainly not British). So I'd have no problem if you or anyone else started an article on 'Spanish London'. But London is a place, and Britons are people. Show me any Wikipedia article under a title which can't be found in any independent reference (except where the title is extended for disambiguation purposes), and I'll show you an article which should be renamed or deleted, depending on whether or no it had any genuine content. this one has no such content. It's simply a fake article on a fake topic.Smerus (talk) 10:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Rename, to something like Spanish ancestry in Britain. I think the topic is a reasonable one, but I don't like the apparent invention of the term Spanish Briton. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep..There are many names of articles in the Briton ethnic groups...and many people use other terms like British Asian etc...but as the person above states that there are ones like Spanish London...etc..and its not good to have a long title on an article. This artilce ias about people of Spanish ancestry , it doesnt matter what you consider yourself...catherine of aragons daughter was very close to her spanish roots and married the king of spain but she was still the queen of england. the term isnt nessearily inventer its just there isnt a big enough usage of terms like these as in thr USA, doesnt mean it wont happen. and the article is referenced even though all these articles need alittle more. (Bluesky) 15:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.142.24 (talk)

^Keep: Arguments over accepted english words in a title are reason for edits, not deletion.--12.72.149.3 (talk) 15:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not an argument over 'accepted English words in a title'. It is about an article on an invented topic, not recognised anywhere except in the article itself, and hence contravening WP's policies on neologism/original research.--Smerus (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This is part of a group of articles looking at immigrant communities from various parts of the world in the UK. By this logice, you would have to delet ALL of them. Indisciplined (talk) 17:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Logically all those articles on topics not recognised elsewhere should certainly be deleted, I agree.--Smerus (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

keep I think it is universal that this issue should have never come up, some person should have looked further into the other articles aswell as they are all the same...not an issue.. i think its unanimus..think we should take away the delete panel at the beginning now!.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.63.106 (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Rename along with all of the other pages like this There are lots of these pages. (I've made a combined table to aid seeing them all, see the "Spanish Briton" article for it.) These are almost all made-up terms, and on occasion are completely inaccurate - Karl Marx would never have called himself "British", yet this is what is implied by the term German Briton, he was in fact a German living in Britain. It should be renamed, along with all of the other problem articles, to something like "Spanish community in Britain" (the "loose" interpretation of Britain gets around historical problems with "UK"). For example, Irish community in Britain (the normal phrase) was moved to "Irish Briton", which the article itself acknowledges is made up. These are in the main made up terms, and often inaccurate or downright wrong. --sony-youth^pléigh 12:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this analysis; but there is no suggestion as to what the renaming procedure could be. As pointed out the various articles are full of inaccuracies and misleading insinuations. They are not encyclopaedic, and remain serious candidates for deletion. If I knew how to bundle them all together, I would list them all for deletion - I am not picking on Spaniards (or Britons for that matter).--Smerus (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I also find myself leaning towards delete on the notability issue. The Irish community in Britain is quite a notable topic and makes a decent article - as would be the Caribbean community in Britain, if that article were developed - but at present there are 50 counties listed in the XXX-Britons-type articles ... that's over a quarter of the countries in the entire world!! What kind of notability standard is being adhered to here? The UK is not like the US where the whole population are descendants of emigrants, and where a whole raft of XXX-American are perfectly valid and notable terms. Most of these would be better dealt with as the "Asian community in Britain", "Black community in Britain" and so forth, saving really specific articles for genuinely notable ethnic communities.

I suspect the best place to sort this out would be the UK Wikipedians' notice board. --sony-youth^pléigh 00:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Rename. This isn't a deletion issue, but since no-one except Wikipedia uses this term, renaming these articles to 'Spanish community in Britain' is much better. Cop 663 (talk) 03:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as per all the other articles with similar nomenclature. The Ogre (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. One section needs work, but the rest of the article is well-sourced and well-written. The article as a whole is Notable and is the sort of article that should be in English Wikipedia. Bearian (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2007 (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.