Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multilingual ethnic group

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

Can't find any evidence that this term is widely used. Article looks like original research. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC){{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multilingual ethnic group||}}

• Delete. I am a linguist and have never heard this used as a serious term; my field is not anthropological linguistics or sociolinguistics, but I can check with people who do specialize in that. Furthermore, this article seems to be just a random collection of whatever the creator could think of, and it's missing some pretty huge and obvious members—for example, Han people, who make up 90% of the population of China and speak 7 different languages (Mandarin, Cantonese, Wu, Gan, Min, Hakka, and another one I can't think of off the top of my head). Then there's the issue of ethnic groups in diasporas, where they may all speak different languages depending on where they are (for example, most Uyghurs speak Uyghur, but pretty much all other than the oldest generation also speaks Mandarin, Uzbek, Kazakh, Russian, or something else, depending on which country they live in). The idea that there is a one-to-one correspondence between languages and ethnic groups is more or less a myth (albeit a very widely believed one in places like, say, Japan), but really we should not be surprised that many ethnic groups speak multiple languages, and thus there is nothing inherently special about a "multilingual ethnic group". rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. No hits in a comprehensive collection of academic databases. No hits in Google scholar.  J L G 3 9 2 6  02:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Rjanag's reasoning is pretty convincing. Otherwise it seems kind of fun and interesting. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - unsourced, and probably will never be sourced. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Looks to me like original research. --Orlady (talk) 21:11, 8 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.