Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black people in Scotland

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 believe the general consensus here is to simply clean the article up, not delete the entire entry. Cheers. I'^mperator 20:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black people in Scotland

Unsourced article, seems to have racialist claims. Able-bodied Creature (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just out of interest, what do you think the "racialist claims" are? I can't see anything remotely resembling one. – iride scent 22:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is the subject of this article separate from African migration to the United Kingdom, British African-Caribbean community, African Americans in the United Kingdom, or Black British? These articles seem to cover it, but then again, I'm American and don't know whether all Scottish people identify as "British," nor do I know whether African and Afro-Carribean immigrants comprise the entire black U.K. population. This may well be a separate article, but if we can agree that these articles cover it, then delete. Otherwise, keep and expand. Graymornings_(talk) 22:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely unsourced. There is also a slight whiff of racism, particularly the last sentence. I could be completely wrong there, but it needs rewriting to make it sound more encyclopedic, and certainly needs backing up by sources. Quantpole (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right OK, are you going to justify the deletion of New Scots, Asian-Scots... and other groups such as Italian-Scots who have completely assimilated into Scottish society?--Whittake Over (talk) 23:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article has now changed to remove the offending sentence. I concur with the other comments that the subject is notable, however, I suggest it be better placed in other articles such as Black British. Though searching for Black People in Scotland does give lots of google scholar results, very few of them seem to be relevent (putting speech marks gives only 4 results). I have had a look to see if information can be found, and there is census information available (and more could probably be found). Relevent info here[1] (table 7) showing the numbers of black people in edinburgh, or here[2] for Glasgow ethnic mix. The problem is making an article out of this sort of information. Unless a scholarly work can be found, all we would be doing is quoting figures. I am therefore changing my vote to redirect to Black British, and merge to other articles such as Nigerian British as required. Quantpole (talk) 12:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree -- Black British seems to be essentially the same subject, though we might want to expand it to include more Scottish info. So, merge/redirect. Graymornings_(talk) 17:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A guy that I know from work, his girlfriend is a partial Italian-Scots girl, with an Italian surname, and they're a significant group; the same principle should be applied to Africans or Nigerians or whatever. Sources must exist.--Adrenaline mestixo (talk) 23:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs expansion, that's all. DGG (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very poorly worded, but obviously notable. Tons of reliable sources exist - see a basic Google search, or this for more scholarly work. I understand the nominator, but a few of the oddest articles in Wikipedia started out as "hot messes". Bearian (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think "very poorly worded" is an understatement. Outright false in parts and possibly in whole is a better description. Black people in Scotland is a new thing that happened in 1997? To quote black scottish poet Maud Sulter, who was born in Glasgow in 1960 and died in Dumfries in 2008, on the subject: "Black people have been in Scotland for over four hundred years". Uncle G (talk) 01:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment You know, I never got why there are often AfD's on articles involving XXX people in YYY location, why not just do cumulative "Demographics of YYY" articles ??? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice to someone posting a better article/stub later. Subject is notable but this article does nothing but make dubious unsourced claims about a group of people. If this stays, the claim about the influx due to oil has to go unless a damned good source can be found. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 06:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Enough has been done to rescue the article. I would still prefer it if the uncited phrases were either backed up or deleted though. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AFD is not cleanup. Problems with the article should've been mentioned on the talk page, and citations added, before coming here. The subject is notable, the content of the current article could use some work. Dream Focus 03:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you don't like it, clean it up instead of AFDing an inherently notable subject. Jwray (talk) 05:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entirely unsourced on a topic of limited notability. Then redirect to Demographics of Scotland.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Also that placing this in AfD is not the solution. --Moloch09 (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2009 (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.