Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austrian New Zealanders

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 delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Austrian New Zealanders[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Small group, which doesn't appear to have been the subject of significant coverage. The only source cited in the article is for the population figure. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Austria, and New Zealand. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have updated the article with the more recent (2018) census [1]. Although at present that is only being used to support the population figure, there is much more information there which could provide material with which to expand the article (although we'd need to be careful to avoid basing large portions of this article on that, per WP:PRIMARY). I have also come up with [2] which provides significant coverage of Austrians in New Zealand, including the history and their cultural contributions. These two sources are sufficient for me to think that the topic is notable; the list of notable Austrians suggests that there would be further sources on individual Austrians which could legitimately be used to expand the article further. WJ94 (talk) 14:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there is no significant coverage by independent secondary sources. The 2018 Cencus is neither independent nor secondary. Cinadon36 08:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Cinadon. --Spekkios (talk) 19:46, 27 January 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.