Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black British population

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. Discussion to merge should take place at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black British population

This is already covered by the Black British article. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to United Kingdom Census 2001, surely.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 02:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- J.Mundo (talk) 03:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. Not sure which will convey the information better, so I'd leave this decision to the talk page of the Black British article. Either way, the information on this page seems sufficiently encyclopedic to be kept somewhere. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. the info is notable. probably for research purposes. the only question is to make sure that the format that it is pu in does not overwhelm the the United Kingdom Census article. maybe a table format.Joe407 (talk) 09:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure why merging with United Kingdom Census 2001 is appropriate. The article uses a combination of 2006 estimates for England and 2001 Census data for the rest of the UK. I would have thought a merger with Black British was more suitable. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a content fork since the Black British article already covers the same ground. A merge with the latter article would therefore seem more logical, though also unnecessary. Middayexpress (talk) 09:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but the unsourced stats need severe cutting down. According to Black_British#Population this is a spin off article which is acceptable for articles of that size. (If it turns out that after cutting everything left in the article is duplicated from the main one, I support a redirect since it's a plausible search term.) - Mgm|^(talk) 10:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is certainly enough purpose to keep this as a seperate article from Black British or the UK Census, all of the information on this page could be expanded even further, and it would be too long to merge with another article. I have already started cleaning up the article, and with a bit more of this as well as adding more sources, there will be no reason at all for it to be nominated again. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 22:52, 9 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.