Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armenian Brazilian

:{{la|Armenian Brazilian}} ([{{fullurl:Armenian Brazilian|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armenian Brazilian}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

There is no evidence of the notability and no consent for this article. Yes, may be there are Armenians in Brazil, however it must be very small minority as it is useless to open for each tiny minority new article. Also there is no sources to back up this info.--NovaSkola (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Delete. Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. --LightAtmosphere (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC) — LightAtmosphere (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 10:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 10:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 10:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep notable in the usual way: multiple non-trivial reliable sources, like:

:*{{citation|title=The Armenian Renaissance in Brazil|first=Roberto|last=Grün|journal=The Americas|volume=53|number=1| date=July 1996 |pages=113-151|jstor=1007476}}

:*{{citation|url=http://www.radiobras.gov.br/especiais/saopaulo450/mat_saopaulo14.php|title=Diáspora Armênia traz para São Paulo os primeiros imigrantes|date=2004-01-24|accessdate=2009-07-07|first=Liésio|last=Pereira|periodical=Radioagência Nacional}} (already cited in the article)

:I'm not sure I believe the population figure of 143,000 as the Joshua Project is definitely not a reliable source (see this discussion, for example), but size has nothing to do with notability. cab (talk) 10:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - notable and sourced article about a notable population. Can and should be expanded. Badagnani (talk) 16:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Not enough coverage from secondary reliable independent sources: [http://scholar.google.com.br/scholar?q=%22Arm%C3%AAnio+Brasileiro%22&hl=pt-BR&btnG=Pesquisar&lr=]. Algébrico (talk) 01:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• I just pointed to non-trivial sources directly above, including a 38-page journal article about this population. The reason you don't get GScholar hits for "Armênio Brasileiro" is because it's a made-up phrase which people don't use. Not every ethnic minority in Brasil is called "Fooian Brazilian". {{find|Armênios * Brasil}} returns quite a few more potential sources, even an entire book on this very topic [http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/28799444&referer=brief_results]. cab (talk) 05:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC){{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armenian Brazilian||}}

• Keep The references provided by cab as examples directly address the topic and the journal article certainly is non-trivial. However, the article should be retitled according to Wikipedia convention if it is different from teh current title which is awkward. Drawn Some (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The references are adequate. There is enough content for a start. DGG (talk) 02:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Merge somewhere else, or (weak) delete; no evidence that this is notable. The references are unimpressive. JJL (talk) 02:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. I'd like to know what sort of reference is needed to impress the above commentor, because we have been presented above with an in-depth scholarly study of the subject. As far as the title goes I would suggest ditching the first sentence of the article, which seems to be trying to fit the title into the mould of hyphenated-American, which is not the formulation used in most of the rest of the world, and renaming the article to Armenians in Brazil. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Has sufficient references to demonstrate notability. Agree with Phil above, the title is awkward. The article needs some more hard data, such as some population statistics. Surely these data exist. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Definite potential for expansion.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:47, 17 July 2009 (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.