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.
This article is based on a problematic issue. It claims that "Arab Belgians ... are Belgians whose ancestry traces back to the Arab World". This is false, as many people who come from the
Arab World do not identify as Arabs. 20% of the Libyan population and 30% of the Moroccan population are
Berbers, for example. This article includes
Lubna Azabal, whose ancestry is Berber, and the vast majority of examples provide no sources to say that these people (all BLPs) are "Arabs".
Moroccans in Belgium is more precise and already exists, and this article duplicates most of it.
Black Kite (talk)18:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep: It is possible to keep the text, but you have to remove almost everything, only the first and third paragraph would remain. The text has another problem: it mentions mosques, but Islam is not synonymous with Arab, and there may even be people whose ancestry is completely Belgian and have converted to Islam.
Jvbignacio9 (
talk)
17:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment: since this has such a strong connection to BLPs strong consideration should be paid to whether this inclusion category is well defined enough per
WP:PRECISE and nom arguements to have an article. Is its content or history in the article that is worth keeping if it was renamed and/or the inclusion criteria/lead changed to reflect a more
WP:PRECISE criteria (if so exactly what is that content worth saving)? Again the strong connection to BLPs should be a main factor in considering all this; the number of BLPs that have been removed from the article and the nom show (as well as the recent ANI
[1] related to all this) the article has a nebulous and unclear criteria. //
Timothy ::
talk02:05, 1 April 2023 (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.
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.
This article is based on a problematic issue. It claims that "Arab Belgians ... are Belgians whose ancestry traces back to the Arab World". This is false, as many people who come from the
Arab World do not identify as Arabs. 20% of the Libyan population and 30% of the Moroccan population are
Berbers, for example. This article includes
Lubna Azabal, whose ancestry is Berber, and the vast majority of examples provide no sources to say that these people (all BLPs) are "Arabs".
Moroccans in Belgium is more precise and already exists, and this article duplicates most of it.
Black Kite (talk)18:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep: It is possible to keep the text, but you have to remove almost everything, only the first and third paragraph would remain. The text has another problem: it mentions mosques, but Islam is not synonymous with Arab, and there may even be people whose ancestry is completely Belgian and have converted to Islam.
Jvbignacio9 (
talk)
17:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment: since this has such a strong connection to BLPs strong consideration should be paid to whether this inclusion category is well defined enough per
WP:PRECISE and nom arguements to have an article. Is its content or history in the article that is worth keeping if it was renamed and/or the inclusion criteria/lead changed to reflect a more
WP:PRECISE criteria (if so exactly what is that content worth saving)? Again the strong connection to BLPs should be a main factor in considering all this; the number of BLPs that have been removed from the article and the nom show (as well as the recent ANI
[1] related to all this) the article has a nebulous and unclear criteria. //
Timothy ::
talk02:05, 1 April 2023 (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.