Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American-Born Confused Desi

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 (non-admin closure). Proposals to merge can obviously be dealt with on the article's talk page, but apart from a smattering of such suggestions, the most conspicious view put forward is that this is notable. Either way, there is clearly no salient consensus to delete the article. WilliamH (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American-Born Confused Desi

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log

)

• Keep Wikipedia allows social/scientific/cultural/academic concepts to have their own articles as long as there is enough notability for inclusion. Take a look at
  WP:NOT hardly applies. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment I don't think the issue has to do with notability or not. Perhaps I should be a bit clearer. An article about "ABCD" wouldn't be significantly different than

Asian American. The term itself highlights an alleged "identity crisis", and that's all the article is going to be about. If you start talking about, let's say, contributions "ABCDs" have made to American Society, you're already covering ground that has been covered by S. Asian, or Asian American. There is significant overlap. I guess you could say it's an unnecessary fork as well. --vi5in^[talk] 20:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep
  WP:NOT fails here. Ultra! 17:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete No indication that this is used widely enough to warrant its own article nor to be anything like comparable to a term such as baby boomer - that's a laugh-out-loud, utterly ridiculous comparison. It could certainly be mentioned, as the nom suggests, at the SAA article; indeed, I hope it is. But the sources adduced do not come even close in establishing sufficient notability and should not be used as grounds for opposing a merge. Eusebeus (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was NOT a comparison. That was an example to show that concepts do have a place in the Wikipedia. Please, read before you laugh. If you have any reason to advocate deletion other than "this is not as common as baby boomer" than you are most welcome to state it. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the concept is (barely) notable enough. My second choice would be a redirect to an article about ABCD, the 1999 English-language film, but we don't have that article yet. JamesMLane t c 01:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm pretty familiar with the term (I personally find it notable), and the article is pretty decent. I'm impressed with the sourcing: I think it demonstrates notability and verifiability. -FrankTobia (talk) 19:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep:Based on the citations provided the term is notable. Arman ^(Talk) 10:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The term may actually be more notable than South Asian American, and as Aditya has pointed out, has more than enough media hits to assert notability. Vivin raises a good point about the scope, but the term itself is notable.Bakaman 03:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge my feeling is that the exact explanation and subject is/can be covered in the
  Baluchistan, Sri Lanka etc. Thus, it does not necessarily represent many of the same "Desh" (nation) who share the same issues, and I don't see why a Northern-tilted article on the subject matter relating to all South Asian immigrants is needed; you can just incorporate "ABCD" into South Asian Americans without comprising its notability, or else have an article that covers the "confusion" issues of all South Asians, not necessarily North Indians. Vishnava (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - based on citations. This is a very well known term. --Ragib (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is well sourced (
  WP:NOT criteria.--NAHID 19:58, 8 May 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.