Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xakriabá people

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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Xakriabá people

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

So short,it should not be notable. I would propose that this be merged with the Menais Gerais, Brasil article. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 13:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick search found a book with a little bit of information, which I have added to the stub. I am sure a more thorough search would find more, especially among Portuguese-language sources - although the Xakriabá language also gets hits which makes it a bit harder to find, as . Alternatively, perhaps the language and the ethnological group could be merged into one article Xakriabá - the only other article on the current disambiguation page is about the Otocinclus xakriaba catfish, but the article doesn't currently exist, and a hatnote would be sufficient to direct people to it should it be created. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the option to merge is taken, I am happy to do that! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck my suggestion to merge the two articles, as I think there is enough for two articles, and keep the disambiguation page as it is (although the catfish article needs creating...) PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or merge) - Not sure if we have notability criteria designated for "peoples", but IMO historical groups of people with their own unique languages are almost by definition notable. At any rate there is academic coverage of the Xakriabá, so I added one such cite. --Lquilter (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that - I think there is enough to justify a stand-alone article for both the ethnic group and the language as separate articles - I'm sure that a search for more sources for both will find some, especially for a Portuguese-speaking editor. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Lquilter; I too feel a people with their own culture are inherently notable, plus the existence of academic sources cinches it. -- BenTels (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient Reliable Sources, and I concur with Lquilter that a people known to exist (i.e. at least one RS) is essentially notable, just as places are. Could nom please note that the basic criterion for bringing an article to AfD is that sources do not exist in the world, not that an article is short or contains few or no sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. We have almost always kept articles discussed at WP:AfD that concern an identifiable group of people, such as a caste, class, or culture; yet we have not always kept individual families or clans. Bearian (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is now a reliable book source here which proves that these people do exist. So, this article should be kept since all indigenous peoples are notable. --Artene50 (talk) 08:17, 4 August 2012 (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.