Talk:Irish American

RFD discussion: February–June 2022
Tagged as speedy by User:Inqilābī with the rationale: "New SoP entry; see British Pakistani precedent". &mdash; Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 11:47, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * See my rationale for nominating it for speedy deletion. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  16:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. &mdash; Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 11:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. You would be deleting a lot of Americans with Irish ancestry, including President Biden. DonnanZ (talk) 12:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete —Svārtava (t/u) • 13:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Extremely Strong Keep:


 * 1) The term refers to a specific community that is historically significant. Only on rare occasions does it refer to somebody alive today that was born in Ireland but moved to America, simply because of the sheer disparity in numbers.
 * 2) Although it is convention, it's not immediately obvious to a naïve reader that this refers to a person of Irish descent living in America, and not a person of American descent living in Ireland. (I actually think this point justifies the reinstatement of British Pakistani, because it shows how it can sometimes be the other way around, but let's leave that aside.)
 * 3) Nationality is complex and nebulous, and there are heated debates as to whether terms like "Irish American" refer to ethnicity, nationality, culture and so on, particularly with enormous communities like this. There are sharply contrasting opinions on either side of the Atlantic, to say the least. Having an entry allows us to capture the broad strokes of this nuance in a nutshell, directing the reader to appropriate encyclopaedic entries.
 * 4) As a consequence of the above, the term has significantly developed in meaning and connotation over time. This is, of course, relevant to historical texts. Particular examples are where it intersects with:
 * 5) Bigotry in 19th and early 20th c. America, where "Irish" was used in lots of disparaging ways, including to imply that they weren't really American (which is definitely not SoP).
 * 6) The disparity in treatment of traditionally Protestant Anglo-Irish immigrants and traditionally Catholic indigenous Irish immigrants, and what "Irish" referred to in that context. Saying "Irish" refers to "Ireland" is very ambiguous; not only in what it means/meant to lots of different people, but also what it emphatically did not mean to different groups.
 * 7) The terms "Irish" and "American" both have senses that are never intended by the term "Irish American". It does not, for example, refer to a person born in Ireland who lives in Argentina.
 * Theknightwho (talk) 13:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The best solution is to create an entry European American and list Irish American, German American, English American, Italian American etc. as (SoP) hyponyms. All these immigrant communities are not dictionary material, really— by the same token we have Native American, but not Navajo American, Cherokee American, Cree American, etc. etc. ’Tis worth noting that being an Irish American is merely a matter of genealogy, this so-called community are not full-blooded Irish, and in practice only identify as US citizens. And most importantly, we do not want to set a precedence for creating hundreds of other ethnic communities: Welsh Argentinian, Catalan Argentinian, Russian Alaskan, Dutch American, Taino Cuban, Quechuan Peruvian, Chinese Indonesian, Tamil Singaporean, etc. etc. The keep votes seem like a cunning way to allow the creation of these redlinks on the morrow. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  15:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * From WT:CFI, "There is occasionally concern that adding an entry for a particular term will lead to entries for a large number of similar terms. This is not a problem, as each term is considered on its own based on its usage, not on the usage of terms similar in form." The redlinks above are not the ones being voted upon and discussed at this RFD, and would be discussed at their times if ever created. AG202 (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well then, good to hear you do not want to create these redlinks eventually, in a Putinesque way. However, seeing that lots of ethnic communities are as important as Irish Americans, I’m afraid the CFI section that you’re quoting is not relevant here. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  16:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "In a Putinesque way", could you elaborate on what you mean by that? I wasn't even the one that made the entry in question to begin with, I just agree with Theknightwho. And yes, it has relevance here since the concern brought up at the end of your prior reply was about entries that have not yet been created or even thought about being created. Like I said, if they're ever brought up to RFD or even created in the first place, then they should be discussed then. I'd go as far as to say that bringing them up here gave them more visibility than ever before in terms of the chance of them being created. AG202 (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean it’s only good that you (people who like to keep SoP encyclopediac stuff) are not being cunning with the motive of gaining the opportunity of populating this dictionary with such entries. But I disagree that creating these entries is the way to start discussions on whether these terms are entry-worthy. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  17:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't vote on nearly every RFD, just the ones that I feel should weigh in on. I told you this the last time you grouped me as such to avoid doing so, in Talk:Javanese script. And actually, yesterday in the RFD for Russian-Canadian, I literally said I would be fine with the deletion of it and the others that aren't "French-Canadian" or "English-Canadian", so the claim that I just vote "keep" to keep "SoP encyclopediac stuff" (which is very much up to personal opinion fyi, as you claimed that even American Sign Language is SoP even though it passed RFD already + other rationales that I won't get into here) isn't true. If you actually want me to continue engaging with you in these RFD discussions, it'd be best for you to avoid these characterizations and continue to focus on the entries at hand. AG202 (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not really ‘characterizing’ you or elsewho. It just gets a bit annoying when you want to keep (some) SoPs/non-dictionary stuff. You are not alone in this, Donnanz and SemperBlotto also does the same (they likewise do not participate at every RFD discussions, nevertheless how they vote is not appropriate). Everyone is entitled to an opinion, sure, but many entries that you wanted to keep have since been deleted. Hence you get an idea which types of words are not to be included in the dictionary. Keeping these illegitimate entries affects our quality. When you get in the way, we are thwarted in our effort to quickly eliminate these entries. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  18:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * These are meant to be discussions and votes where we hear as many folks as possible, if the entries were meant to be deleted instantly, then we wouldn't be having them. Not nearly every entry that I've voted keep on has been deleted (I'd say a majority have been kept actually), nor has every entry that you've nominated for deletion been deleted either. When the entries do get deleted, I just see it as consensus for that entry that a majority of folks want the entry deleted, which is fine and I don't see their votes as "inappropriate" either. There's no exceedingly strict policy on this, and it's up to the interpretation of each editor. I don't know why you're stating that I'm "getting in the way" or that you're being "thwarted in our effort", when you're not in charge of this project on your own and not everyone holds the same opinion as you (as more clearly seen with American Sign Language). I would never claim that of folks that vote "delete" even if discussions can get heated a few times. Like @Sgconlaw said below, these types of attributions don't contribute constructively to discussions. AG202 (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * please do not attribute motives to editors or use inflammatory language. It does not contribute constructively to discussions in any shape or form. — SGconlaw (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Just to clarify, the semantics intended was not Putinesque. You understood me amiss. But it doesn’t matter anyway, because Putinesque is not by default a derogatory term. It was a jocular remark on my part. It becomes inflammatory language only when someone uses the names of Hitler or Stalin. Hope you understand.  ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  16:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * given current events, the word can certainly be construed as derogatory or inflammatory. Please continue the discussion without using any language that might be thus construed. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Good advice 👌. But unfortunately this occurs not uncommonly: see Donnanz’s comment at Talk:happy Fourth of July, which I actually found offensive. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  17:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * well, in that case editors should avoid engaging in behaviour which they themselves find offensive. Two wrongs do not make a right. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I see I have been mentioned twice in despatches. I would like to tell Inqilābī that I will never rubber-stamp his RFDs, nor should any other editor. DonnanZ (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This only addresses a small part of my point, really. I've identified numerous instances where it isn't how you've described, or where there is significant difference in connotation... Theknightwho (talk) 17:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Theknightwho. AG202 (talk) 14:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as SoP. Also, I have to say that not having such an entry is not "deleting a lot of Americans with Irish ancestry". That is simply irrelevant hyperbole. Neither is it relevant that the community is historically significant, or has historically suffered discrimination. There is a whole article at "Irish Americans" over at the Wikipedia for people interested to find out more about the community to read. An entry here is hardly a useful way to find out anything about the community. — SGconlaw (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Fundamentally, the point that I was making wasn't discrimination = an entry, but rather that discrimination was one factor that has contributed to the term becoming extremely muddied and used in many different ways. Something should be considered sum of parts only when it is obvious that it really is just X + Y in all contexts. That is absolutely not the case here. Theknightwho (talk) 17:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ehhh, in my view the term is still just + . I am not seeing what you mean by the term being used in many different ways. Feel free to provide examples. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well for a start, the connotation (these days) of it being people of Irish heritage, not Irish birth - something that Inqilābī actually acknowledges by saying "’Tis worth noting that being an Irish American is merely a matter of genealogy, this so-called community are not full-blooded Irish". So he seems to be inadvertently excluding Irish-born Americans, but that's the precise opposite of what many people in Ireland think (and why terms like Plastic Paddy exist in Ireland today, which are literally saying they aren't Irish). And what does he mean by "full-blooded Irish" anyway? Ethnicity? So are we excluding Anglo-Irish? They tend to more identify as, and were historically rejected by the Irish American community due to sectarianism, even though that isn't the case today. The question of SoP is as much about what the term isn't as what the term is - a term can be less than the sum of its parts. Despite these apparent ambiguities, I think we all have the same idea of what "Irish American" actually refers to, because it's a very real community with specific cultural elements. Those elements might come from Ireland and America, but they're from an Ireland and America that no longer exist, and are defined by specific parts of them at that. For one, the Irish American community is overwhelmingly associated with Irish republicanism and - by extension - the Republic of Ireland. You also don't really associate Irish Americans with North Dakota or Alaska, either, but Boston and New York.Just to make the point clear, a Northern Irish-born person who moved to America and became a citizen in the last 20 years is so far removed from what the vast majority of people think of when they think of "Irish American" that that alone means it's not SoP.Theknightwho (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * the word Irish is not limited to people born in Ireland, but encompasses anything originating from Ireland (including a person’s ancestors) or to Irish people. This is the case for many such adjectives (and nouns) like Congolese, French, and Vietnamese. Similarly, for such words, they can also relate to a Congo/France/Vietnam that no longer exists, and which are now defined by characteristics which people associate with those communities. There is nothing particularly unique about Irish in this respect. I think you are overcomplicating the issue. Whether Irish Americans are largely supportive of Irish republicanism or live largely in Northeastern USA are not relevant in showing that the term Irish American is not SoP, in my view. If you are suggesting that someone born in Northern Ireland and who became a US citizen in the past 20 years cannot be referred to using the term Irish American because it has such a narrow sense, I’m afraid you’re going to have to demonstrate that through suitable quotations. — SGconlaw (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that it's unique (it isn't) or that you can't call a person like that Irish American (you can). The point is that it means (and meant) a whole variety of different things to different people, for political and cultural reasons. The fact that we associate them with a particular community in certain times and places is surely important, no?
 * At the end of the day, though, the fact that they're of Irish descent living in America and not of American descent living in Ireland is the most obvious way that this isn't SoP. Theknightwho (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * this very point was discussed with respect to, and it was decided that that wasn't enough to prevent the term from being regarded as SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The whole summation of that discussion was you saying "That would still be SoP in my view – it’s still British + Pakastani". By the same logic, you would have to delete native American. The point is what the term doesn't convey - not what it does. Theknightwho (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * no, the meaning of native isn’t obvious from the context, which makes Native American non-SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's no more opaque than "Irish", given that by many definitions most aren't Irish (e.g. citizens). Theknightwho (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Since Donnanz used the example of Joe Biden (see above), it’s worth reading the relevant Wikipedia section that says Biden has some English and French ancestry. That is what I meant by ‘not full-blooded’. Of course, native Irish people have Norman, Viking, and English ancestry due to history, and yet they are full-blooded. The Scotch-Irish are a special case, and their identification as Irish or not would depend upon their political identity. And for the record, European American communities are generally mixed-race, e.g., George Washington was an English American with French ancestry. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  19:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am a New Zealander with an English surname living in England, but I don't regard myself as an English New Zealander as, like most New Zealanders, I am a mongrel with mixed ancestry. DonnanZ (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * As the creator of this article (and being Irish myself) I would argue this term has the same weight as 'African American' and 'Italian American' (both of which are as of yet unchallenged terms on this website). I see no difference with including Irish American as I know from first hand experience that the culture of 'Irish Americans' and the history associated with the term is very much divergant from that of the simple sum of its parts (Irish + American). When one imagines an Irish American today one does not simply imagine an Irish immigrant or an American of Irish heritage, they imagine a wholy seperate type of nationality. I personally and wholeheartedly belive that the term Irish American carries much more weight that some people in this thread (ignorantly) want to believe it does. FishandChipper (talk) 07:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Some of these compounds are not just simple, random re-combinations and have their own interesting etymology and history, especially African American and Asian American (which should be created). – Jberkel 14:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Completly agree. To be 'Irish American' is much more than simply being Irish and American. Modern day ideas of St.Patrick's Day for example is very much an Irish American tradition rather than an Irish tradition or an American tradition FishandChipper (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd been meaning to create, but unfortunately got busy, thanks for the reminder! AG202 (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's a related Time article from 2020 which might be a useful source. – Jberkel 18:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, assuming I accept that Irish American has a narrower sense than is conveyed by the words Irish + American to make it not sum-of-parts (which I currently remain unconvinced of), how should the term be redefined? At the moment, the definitions are, for the noun, "An American citizen with Irish ancestry or heritage" and "An Irish citizen who has immigrated to America", and for the adjective, "Of Irish American heritage or culture". These are SoP, because they apply to any combination of nationalities, as Algerian French or Vietnamese Australian. Moreover, the revised definitions would have to be fairly short, otherwise this is a matter for Wikipedia, not the Wiktionary. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems we'll have to agree to disagree as neither of us will be able to convince the other of the term being more than or equal to the sum of its pearts. However I again wholeheartedly believe that Irish American culture is without a doubt a seperate beast from Irish and American culture as much as German culture is seperate form French culture or any other combination. Also if we are to delete Irish American than you could surely provide seperate reasons as to why African American deserves a spot? Or Italian American? One more note, the seemingly perfect and undebated article African-American literally contains Irish American as a term it supposedly mimics XD.FishandChipper (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * But you haven't explained how the definition should be modified so as to be non-SoP (if it can be). As for your other point, I think is SoP and should be deleted;  may require further discussion because African isn't a nationality. — SGconlaw (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I want to know from a personal, non-lingustic standpoint if you genuinely think that Irish American poeple are in no way whatsoever a distinguishable group from other Americans other than their Irish heritage? And the same goes for Italian American people. Simply making a catch-all 'European American' term as was proposed by @Theknightwho could in no way contain the subtlty and complexity with each term. Since I hold this to be true then I can see no way in which Irish American (and also by extension Italian American) could possibly be considered just the sub of its parts exept by close minded indivduals. FishandChipper (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That wasn't proposed by me - I agree with you! Theknightwho (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oops sorry about that, I must be going a bit blind XD FishandChipper (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You are misunderstanding what SoP means. The relevant question is whether the term Irish American has a sense that is qualitatively different from the words Irish + American, and not whether Irish Americans as people are distinguishable from other Americans (arguably they are). If one cannot define Irish American in a way which is different from “An American citizen with Irish ancestry or heritage”, then it is hard to see why the term is not SoP. Here’s a different example. Blue collar is not SoP if it is used to mean “working class”; that is qualitatively different from blue + collar. However, if its only sense was “a collar that is a shade of blue”, that would be SoP. It matters not that (for the sake of argument) there is a long history of people wearing apparel with blue collars, or that blue-collared clothes are distinctive, etc. — SGconlaw (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You're ignoring that constituent words can have multiple definitions, and if only one of them applies to the compound term then it still isn't SoP. Theknightwho (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My argument is not that Irish American is not SoP (which granted it could fairly be argued as such) but rather that there are many other terms that are uncontested which are as much SoPs as Irish American is (e.g. African American, Italian American hell even Native American to an extent is nothing more than 'A decendant of a native inhabitant of America'. If Irish American should be deleted for being SoP then all other combinations should be also. FishandChipper (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see my response in the discussion about Russian-Canadian to see how is markedly different. AG202 (talk) 02:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * if the constituent words of a multiword term have multiple senses which make it unclear which sense is intended, that may show the multiword term is not SoP, but as I’ve argued elsewhere it depends on the context. For example, I think cow’s milk is SoP because even though cow can mean the female of several mammals, readers can readily tell from the context that an elephant or hippopotamus is not the intended sense.
 * ”Other stuff exists” isn’t a good justification because it may simply mean that the “other stuff” is also SoP but hasn’t been highlighted yet. Native American isn’t SoP because a very specific sense of native is intended; a white person whose family has been in the USA for four generations isn’t native in that sense. That’s why I’ve argued that if one can show Irish is intended in some narrow sense, Irish American might not be SoP. But so far no one has adequately demonstrated such a sense. — SGconlaw (talk) 03:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And yet I see the page for cow's milk is (and forever has been) uncontested? Also I want to know what 'specific sense of native' your referring to in this example cause as far as I can tell native in this sense is completly unambiguous. FishandChipper (talk) 08:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As I’ve already pointed out (numerous times now): a specific sense of Irish is meant. Most aren’t citizens and most weren’t born there. That’s leaving aside the fact that the term refers to immigration one way round and not the other, which you rejected on a precedent that amounted to you rejecting it with no further reasoning in another discussion. The word “native” is playing a similar role: both refer to descent. Yet you reject “Irish American” as SoP despite admitting the narrower sense, while also saying that that’s what makes “Native American” different, on the seemingly arbitrary basis that one is narrow and another is not. I don’t see how you can do that. This is starting to feel like because the term is obvious to you, that it’s therefore SoP. It isn’t. Theknightwho (talk) 13:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * was challenged and passed: see its talk page. I voted that it should be deleted as SoP. On the other hand, British Pakistani was found to be SoP, which is directly on point here.
 * Native can mean "belonging to one by birth', "characteristic of or relating to people inhabiting a region from prehistoric times", or "born or grown in the region in which it lives or is found; not foreign or imported", among other senses. In Native American, it means only "characteristic of or relating to people inhabiting a region from prehistoric times" – as mentioned above, a white person whose family has been in the USA for four generations isn't native in that sense – so native is used in a narrow sense which, in my view, makes it non-SoP.
 * On the other hand, at the moment we define Irish as "Pertaining to or originating from Ireland or the Irish people", and Irish American as "An American citizen with Irish ancestry or heritage" and "An Irish citizen who has immigrated to America". If there is a more specific sense of Irish in Irish American which isn't "Pertaining to or originating from Ireland or the Irish people", then please do identify it and indicate how you propose that the current definition should be rewritten, because as far as I can see it doesn't indicate any narrower sense which is said to exist. — SGconlaw (talk) 13:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The current definition excludes Americans who have emigrated to Ireland, but they would "Irish American" under your logic due to the fact that they pertain to Ireland. You still haven't explained why that isn't sufficient.
 * The adjective refers to Irish American heritage or culture, which is distinct and exists in and of its own right.
 * The derogatory usage sense is also not SoP.
 * It isn't referring to the two other senses of "Irish".
 * It isn't referring to the several other senses of "American".
 * Theknightwho (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The whole thing is a massive can of worms: we have Ulster Scots, Scotch-Irish (but not the variant with ‘Scots’ instead of ‘Scotch’, or any unhyphenated form), Anglo-American and Anglo-Indian but not Anglo-Irish or American English (in the sense that would include Nancy Astor and would have included Boris Johnson, rather than the linguistic sense). The more I think about it, the more unsure I am. I do think that the usage note claiming that Irish American is sometimes derogatory is rather odd - perhaps a note (carefully worded, of course) saying that Irish Americans are not regarded as Irish by many (actual) Irish people and are often known by the derogatory term plastic paddies is in order but the term Irish American clearly isn’t itself derogatory. Overlordnat1 (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ as like I said I have first hand experience of this and I know that 'Irish American' is a much more common derogatory term than plastic paddy (which i hadn't even hear of until this thread XD) FishandChipper (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I’m open to counterarguments but I just don’t see how this is true - if people have called you Irish-American with a sneering tone of voice then that is of course offensive but it doesn’t make the term itself derogatory. ‘Plastic paddy’ is quite widely used throughout the English speaking world to criticise people who claim that they’re Irish but aren’t considered to be by the speaker, especially Irish-Americans, it’s widely used in Ireland itself but not just there. Overlordnat1 (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with this. We have an entry at Plastic Paddy, by the way. Theknightwho (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Idk maybe I'm just unobsevant but I can honestly say as an Irish citizen all my life not once have I ever heard someone say Plastic Paddy. Maybe some kind of Mandela Effect? XD FishandChipper (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia article references an academic who claimed that the expression originated in 1980s London but the earliest cite on GoogleBooks is from 1993 referencing the song ‘Plastic Paddy’ - further research reveals that this is almost certainly the song by the famous Australian (Scottish-born) folk singer Eric Bogle of the same year (it first appeared on his 1993 album ‘Mirrors’ and can be listened to on YouTube). People of various nationalities have used the term in books but checking GoogleBooks it does seem to be a term that’s still much more widely used in the U.K than elsewhere tbh. Overlordnat1 (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thats probably why I havent heard it, cause im not from the UK. Also I never denied its existance mind you it was simply something new id heard of. FishandChipper (talk) 08:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Just a comment: it seems unusual not to hyphenate this, so consider making the primary form the hyphenated one. Equinox ◑ 22:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I was debating this as I created the pages (as you can see in the revsion logs) and I think I may end up swapping the two pages if this falls through. FishandChipper (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep; it's a recognised term with independent meaning. As to the concerns about the slippery slope that this would lead to Nigerian Japanese or Egyptian Portuguese or whatever, those terms can be added if they are recognised as having significant, independent meaning in the same way, and not merely two words put next to each other. But we should not be about excluding actual terms simply because they feel formulaic or we are concerned about there being more words on the same model (that's how language works?) or whatever. AllenY99 (talk) 08:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as per prev. comment. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 09:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

RFD-kept, 6-5 AG202 (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)