Deletion of Afghan British

Comment: after edit conflict): the nominator's reference to  is a red herring: the topic of each article is an existing group of people, not a newly-coined word or phrase.  See Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms#Articles_wrongly_titled_as_neologisms.  We need "a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English", and it might be that "Foo-ians in the United Kingdom" or "Foo-ian people in the United Kingdom" or similar would be better titles for some of these articles (with redirects from current titles and anything else plausible). Bad choice of title is not a reason for deletion. As for , some of it is sourced and some needs better sources, but the existence of the people is not OR
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:NOR)

Comment: and rename or alter content as needed to comply with neologisms and  requirements. The subject of "British citizens of Japanese ancestry" or "Ethnic Japanese with British citizenship" or whatever we want to call it is a valid topic and one of interest. It should not be upmerged to "East Asians in Britain" or "British Asians" or whatever the term is, because not all Asians are the same - they came to Britain at different times, for different reasons, and play different roles in society today. The key focus here should not be on the titles of the pages, whether they are neologisms or not, because the topics they describe are still perfectly valid. And as for the question of it being Original Research, there are sources out there on these topics, and many of these articles do cite sources. So it's not original research, it's using sources already out there; old research
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)