Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Pashtun

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 merge to Afghans in the United Kingdom. Tim Song (talk) 02:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British Pashtun

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sure that the topic is notable. The only sources we have are a single Reuters article and a passing mention in a government report. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into United_Kingdom#Ethnic_groups - Insufficient content to warrant a separate article. Davnor (talk) 14:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's really notable enough for mention in the main United Kingdom article. Afghans in the United Kingdom and British Pakistanis might be better merge targets. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good point; those would be better targets for a merge. Davnor (talk)
Merge, probably to Afghans in the United Kingdom. In the event that a lot of information gets uncovered about UK Pashtuns, a separate article can be split off again. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm a bit soft on this. The number of Pashtuns in Britain is substantial (100,000) - the article is worthy of its living. Mar4d (talk) 05:24, 15 May 2010 (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.