Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups

Lists of <x> Americans edit

Administrator-determined consensus at WP:AFD and WP:DRV has recently endorsed that lists of Americans by ethnic group are violations of WP:NOT#DIR and need to be deleted. Examples: [1], [2], [3]. However, lists of other ethnic groups have been kept, leading to a piecemeal and inconsistent treatment of lists with the exact same functions and merits. I propose attempting to determine a consensus as to whether lists of Americans by ethnic group are appropriate for Wikipedia or not, and then applying any action to the group of lists en-masse, i.e. either mass deletion or restoration of all lists of this type. Leuko 14:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lists affected by this consensus would be: (Feel free to add if I missed any)

  • Comment - I see no such concensus to delete each and every single one of these lists, and I whole-heartedly disagree with the idea that they should all be deleted or kept. The fact is, some of these lists should be kept, and others may need to be deleted. As an example, I don't think the ethnic demographic of "Fijian Serbs" is notable to the best of my knowledge, and there aren't any notable Fijian Serb. A list of Fijian Serbs is probably not necessary. However, African Americans is a notable ethnic demographic, making a list of African Americans notable and not simply a list of loosely associated items. Now, these lists have already been through mass deletion AfDs, and the result was kept. I don't see what's changed that we need to bring up a mass deletion debate again. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the result of the multiple article nomination was no-consensus, which defaults to keep, but really isn't some overwhelming mandate from the masses. Secondly, the discussion should focus around whether these types of lists are violations of WP:NOT. In that sense, they are all the same and should be either all deleted or kept. Individual lists could still undergo AfD, however, I don't see any lists of Fijian Serbs being discussed. Can you demonstrate to me how a list of Asian Americans is any different than a list of English Americans or Norwegian Americans? They are essentially the same and should be treated as such when discussing global policies like WP:NOT. Leuko 15:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, the result of the multiple article nomination was no-consensus - That would seem to contradict your earlier statement that there was consensus to delete all of these lists. I don't see that anything has changed that'll bring us from no consensus to having achieved consensus to delete. I don't know anything about English Americans or Norwegian Americans, maybe they are notable ethnic groups, or maybe they're not. My example of "Fijian Serbs" vs African Americans perfectly illustrates how some of these lists should be kept and others deleted. Just because a list of African Americans may be kept doesn't mean we should go and create a list of Fijian Serbs - the ethnic group is not notable and there's no notable Fijian Serbs to the the best of my knowledge. On the other hand, African American is a notable ethnic group and there are plenty of notable African Americans. It's a very simple concept. If a topic is notable, it should be kept. If another topic is not notable, it should be deleted. That's one of the main reasons why the earlier mass deletion AfDs failed to reach deletion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List of Estonian Americans AFD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Estonian_Americans At least showed a clear consensus of KEEP before withdrawal. I do not think this class action is justified.--Alexia Death the Grey 15:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a mas AfD. It is a discussion as to the appropriateness of including these lists in WP. Possible outcomes include deletion if a consensus exists that the lists are in violation of WP policy, or the restoration of deleted lists if not. Leuko 16:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to HongQiGong: You can split the arguments for deleting these lists into two types: (1) the general argument that none of these lists should remain because they will never be up to Wikipedia standards; (2) specific arguments that particular lists should go because, while other lists are up to our standards (or could be), these particular lists are unlikely to be. The first type of argument calls for a central discussion. We'll always have the second type of argument, but we can concentrate on it better (or avoid it entirely) if we decide on the first. If we have a general policy for allowing these lists or deleting them all, then we avoid the feeling among some that their ethnic group's list was deleted for bigoted reasons while others were kept. This is an important goal. By concentrating on (2)-type arguments, we decrease tensions, focus the deletion discussions and encourage editors to improve the articles with adequate sourcing, contextual information, etc. Noroton 15:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing administrator User:Neil, taking into consideration the deletion discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans has interpreted WP:NOT#DIRECTORY as prohibiting these kinds of lists. Everyone should see his reasoning there (which looks pretty solid to me). These lists will all eventually go as Neil or other closing admins (using Neil's reasoning as a model or precedent) declare that deletion arguments are more closely tied to existing Wikipedia policy. These admins will be fully within their authority to decide to delete even when a majority of the editors in the discussion favors keeping the article. It will be slow and painful. That's the reality. However, if most editors want to change the rules at WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, they can do so and make it clear either that these lists should be deleted or they should stay. At that point, those who want to delete the lists would have a much tougher time of it. They would have to rely on lack of citations (something that can be fixed) or other arguments, and we'd likely have a situation where consensus was in control, with arguments based on the quality of the list we're looking at rather than on whether the lists should be kept at all. I'd call that progress. It's been suggested to Leuko that rather than nominating 50 of these lists at once, he nominate about 10 at once. That may be a good thing to keep the pressure on and keep editors' minds focused on coming to a consensus. Noroton 15:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • All due respect, WP:NOT#DIRECTORY is not applicable here for all these lists. By the very fact that some of these ethnic demographics are notable, it makes them not simple lists of loose associations or trivial ethnic cross-sections. Nor do these list offer contact information or other consumer-related information. I absolutely believe that some of these lists should stay and some should go. WP is not out to be sensitive to everybody's needs, and it's not like we're making attack pages here. If one topic is notable, it should be kept. If another topic is not notable, then it should be deleted. It's as simple as that. And that's exactly why mass deletion AfDs on these lists failed in the first place. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, what makes the 6 deleted lists inappropriate for WP, whereas all the rest of them are fine? Leuko
        • I have on idea. I was not involved in those AfDs. My point remains - there's no good reason to enforce a rule that all these lists should be either kept or deleted. They need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • My point is that the interpretation is out there and it's being used by closing admins to delete. If you don't change the policy, you'll face the consequences of Leuko or someone else eventually nominating the list you like and a closing admin like Neil or someone else deciding that policy demands that list be deleted. And it won't matter if you have a majority or mabye even a big majority in the deletion discussion. Noroton 16:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Without a unifying consensus on whether these lists are violations of WP:NOT or other WP policies, they will just keep getting deleted/restored in a patchwork fashion, and this does not benefit the project. It only will it become more of a mess than it already is, especially since the reasoning to delete the lists already deleted applies equally to all the lists. Leuko 17:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's really no different from what any article may be subjected to. Some editor may decide s/he doesn't like an article and nominate it for deletion, then a closing admin may decide to delete it for whatever reason. There're already policies which dictate which lists should be deleted and which should be kept. Verifiability, notability, etc etc. Even if some new policy sprung up which says that all of these lists should be kept (which I would disagree with), such a list can still be nominated and a closing admin can still delete the list, simply because it is within their editing powers to do so. That's why there's a deletion review process that is available to undelete an article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • And the lists that have been deleted already have had their deletion endorsed (without any comment from the closing admin despite a lack of consensus). Therefore, consensus must be that all these lists should be deleted as a violation of WP:NOT, unless a different consensus emerges that both the AfD and DRV were incorrect. Leuko 17:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Please review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. It appears to me that the closing admin's reasoning could be used in any deletion discussion for an ethnic group list. While it's true that even if we changed that policy, other objections pointing to other policies could be made in deletion discussions, the WP:NOT:DIR policy is the one where the "keep" side is weakest. Either change it or watch all the lists slowly be deleted.Noroton 17:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Consensus means everybody involved in a discussion agrees not to oppose a certain action. The mere fact that there were keep votes at some of these AfDs would mean there is no consensus. In fact, the mere fact that I am against mass deleting all these lists means there's no consensus. Those AfDs and DRVs need to be examined individually. Some of them may have been closed correctly, others may not have been closed correctly. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Break 1 edit

  • The WP:NOT#DIR justification for deletion could just as easily be applied to all "List of ..." pages. In that sense, I find it to be faulty. While lists can be difficult to maintain, those issues should be addressed for each list (not solved by deleting all of them.) As for the "use a category" argument: lists serve a different purpose than categories. From WP:LISTS: lists are better for navigation, development, and organization -- ".. having both a list and a similar category is not necessarily redundant." Perhaps a project could be started to establish guidelines for inclusion, format, etc. Nposs 16:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a deletion discussion and it won't have any effect (directly) on whether these lists stay or go. WP:LISTS is a style guideline and if a list meets every one of its suggestions that list can still be deleted for the same reasons Neil, the closing admin, used to close the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_German_Americans discussion. If WP:DIRECTORY explicitly states that ethnic group lists are not considered a problem, the way that it already states that List of Jewish American musicians is not a problem, then that's one argument that can't be used by editors or closing admins in deletion discussions (other arguments will still be used). Another option is to specifically write into that policy that ethnic group lists are forbidden. Either way, we stop the constant discussions over these lists and we (for the most part) stop the piecemeal deleting from take place in which one ethnic group is represented while another isn't -- which I think makes Wikipedia look bad. Noroton 17:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC) ((wording changes Noroton 17:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)))[reply]
  • Comment -- One of my biggest frustrations with the wikipedia is the frequent, very frequent lapses from WP:CIV and WP:NPA in the deletion fora. These breaches are so breaches are so common
    • These lapses are so common they are routine. These breaches are so common that discussions where everyone complies with policy are exceptional.
    • IMO, the root cause of most of these breaches of civility can be traced to the wikipedia's lack of a place for the discussion of the pros and cons of competing alternate visions of the wikipedia's future.
    • Some of the participants in the deletion fora self-identify as 'Mergists", "deletionists", and less commonly, "inclusionists". Good luck however finding a manifestor for these movements.
    • In the interests of transparency I think participants in this discussion deserve to know that Leuko has self-identified himself as a "deletionist" on his User page.
    • So, is this a forum where we are going to discuss the pros and cons of the competing, incompatible visions of the wikipedia's future. Or are we going to discuss these articles solely based on their merits? Is this even possible?
    • My guess is that the most common future vision is that of the mergists. My future vision is generally at odds with theirs, becasue I think, without realizinzing its implications, they want to artificially confine the wikipeida withing the limits imposed on paper encyclopedias
    • So, are we going to put our cards on the table? Geo Swan 16:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I feel that articles which blatantly do not meet WP standards (especially [[WP:COI puff pieces) should be removed, but that does not mean I wantonly want to delete wide swaths of WP for pure joy. That's why I want to determine consensus on the appropriateness of these lists for WP, either for deletion or restoration, depending on consensus. Leuko 16:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question? -- Which of these things is not like the other? List of Argentine Jews, List of Brazilian Jews, List of Chilean Jews, List of Latin American Jews. -- Geo Swan 16:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those were included in the original List of Portuguese Americans AfD, so I included them. I did not go out and search for these lists. One can see how a list of <x> people in country <y> could be generalized to whatever consensus we reach here. Though for someone espousing the frequent breaches of WP:NPA and WP:CIV, I do resent the implication. Leuko 16:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "purpose of lists" header in WP:LIST mentions that lists should satisfy three criterea: Information, Navigation, and Development. The super-list Lists of African Americans includes List of composers of African descent which isn't even limited to "Americans," a feature that does not ease navigation. It has no information in it, other than an extremely short intro sentence, so it fails that point, too. It could possibly assist in the development section: if a category is not included on the page, then it, if notable, could be created (such as "African American inventors"). However, WP:SAL mentions that a list of people should be composed of articles on people who are notable just for being (blank), and not notable and (blank). In this, I think that nearly every ethnic and sub-ethnic group list could eventually fall. How can you prove that Michelle Kwan is more important because she is Asian American than she would have been if she was not?—ScouterSig 17:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the notability of Michelle Kwan being Chinese American/Asian American:
So on and so forth. But perhaps Michelle Kwan is an easy one. If you've read any published literature on specific ethnic groups at all, you'd see that they mention the names of notable people in the ethnic group and discuss what these people have done to be notable. This is why I've said that if an ethnic designation is notable, then a list of notable people in that ethnic group is not just a list of loose association and is notable enough in itself to be kept. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The question at hand is not whether certain ethnic groups or members of those ethnic groups are notable or not. I think it's rather obvious that all the ethnic groups listed above are notable. However, the question is whether lists of loosely-associated people (i.e. they only share the same heritage) are appropriate for WP or whether they violate WP:NOT#DIR. Leuko
I think you underestimate the degree to which people are bound by ethnicity and a common culture. -Chunky Rice 17:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I fully understand that, which is why I would like to hammer out a consensus on whether WP:NOT forbids these lists or not, and take appropriate action. Leuko 18:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are all those ethnic groups really notable though? That's a genuine question. Did you actually do reading on all of these ethnic groups to arrive at the conclusion that it's "obvious" that all these ethnic groups are notable? Because I certainly am not personally sure that they all are notable. I haven't clicked on all the lists, but for example, there's no article for Israeli American or Chilean Jew. If articles for those two were created, would they pass the notability requirements for them to be kept? And the question really is, if an ethnic group is definitely notable, why should a list of notable people from that ethnic group be deleted? That the ethnic group is notable would mean that the list is not just a list of loose association, and of the lists that I've looked at, they do not offer the type of information noted in WP:NOT. More importantly, why should we make a policy to either delete or keep all of them, and in doing so ignoring the fact that it's entirely possible that some of these ethnic groups are notable and others are not? I mean, not all ethnic cross sections are going to be notable. Let's say hypothetically that we arrive at consensus that we should keep all of these lists. That would mean that we'd have to allow List of Fijian Serbs to be kept - but that makes no sense whatsoever because such a list would not be notable enough to be kept. It's almost a strawman argument to say that we should either keep all or delete all, because keeping all would allow for all kinds of ridiculous lists which obviously have no place on WP - for example, a list of Fijian Serbs, or a list of Czech Laotians, or a list of Japanese Ethiopians, etc etc. In other words, you're basically pushing for two options where one of the options is obviously unattainable, thereby really pushing for one thing only - that they all be deleted. But it still remains that there's no good reason why we should limit ourselves to deleting all or keeping all. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you seem to be missing the crux of the discussion. The articles were not deleted because of a lack of notability of the ethnic groups, they were deleted for violating WP:NOT#DIR. Therefore this discussion was initiated to see if this was a correct interpretation of WP:NOT. This concept has a global bearing on all these lists - either they should all be deleted as violations of WP:NOT or the deleted lists should be restored since the deletion reasoning was false. We should first decide the correct interpretation of WP:NOT, and then worry about the merits of individual lists, as suggested by Noroton above. No one is suggesting giving a carte-blanche to lists of Fijian Serbs or the like, and to suggest such is ridiculous. And since you keep brining it up, multiple lists of notable people from notable ethnic groups did get deleted (while others remain), so notability obviously isn't the issue. Leuko 22:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Good. If you'll devote your energies to creating great content, improving existing articles that need it, and working to delete non-notable articles--and not on removing articles that, as it has repeatedly been pointed out by numerous long-time and productive editors, are of immense use in locating important information regarding individuals from various ethnic groups in the United States, that would be great. Badagnani 22:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am glad you approve. I guess I am not the Wikidestroyer that needed immediate indef blocking, and am in fact a long-time, productive contributor myself? While I am not convinced of the ultimate usefulness of these lists vs. categories, I would support keeping them if consensus and WP policies are applied to them all evenly. Leuko 22:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As long as we're not advocating a whole-sale keep or delete of all these lists, it's fine. These lists need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Not all admins are going to agree on how to close a specific AfD. But it's entirely possible to apply WP:NOT evenly and we come out with some lists deleted and others kept. If ethnicity X is not notable and nobody gives a damn that a group of notable people are of that ethnicity, then what we've got is a loosely associated list. But some of these ethnicities listed here have been written about and are notable. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wholeheartedly disagree that on the issue of whether these lists violate WP:NOT should be evaluated on a case by case basis. They are all essentially the same in purpose and content, and as such should be evaluated en-masse. Otherwise, we end up with the mess that we have now - some lists being kept and others deleted, even though they have the same merits, and the groups are equally notable. Like User:Noroton says, "If we have a general policy for allowing these lists or deleting them all, then we avoid the feeling among some that their ethnic group's list was deleted for bigoted reasons while others were kept." You can't seriously opine that the 6 lists that were deleted per WP:NOT are somehow inferior to the other lists. Leuko 00:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The idea that we should avoid the feeling among some that their ethnic groups list was deleted... is not based in policy at all. The fact of the matter is that some ethnic groups are more notable than others. Not all ethnic cross sections have the same notability merits, and it's not a mess that some lists are deleted while others are not. Keeping all of them would entail that we also allow a list for something like "Fijian Serb" or "Japanese Ethiopian" to be kept, ignoring the fact that they would probably not pass a notability test (or are you suggesting we make policy that would override other existing policies?) While deleting all of them would entail we delete lists for ethnic groups like African Americans or Native Americans that have been thoroughly written about. It's perfectly and entirely possible to apply existing policy evenly and we come out with some lists deleted and some kept. That's how the rest of WP has functioned since its creation! Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Right: Zhongguonese are more important than Hmong, etc. We've heard it all before. I don't agree at all with this. If I want to determine who are the prominent Hmong, or Vietnamese Americans, or Laotian Americans, or whatever, all on one page and listed by occupation, I should be able to do that at Wikipedia. The attempt to blank this content is extremely damaging to our project and not helpful to our users. Badagnani 04:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What the hell is "Zhongguonese"? I've never heard of this before. And I actually voted keep on the lists for Hmong American, Vietnamese American, and Laotian American. Like I said, evaluate each list on its own merits. To advocate that we should keep all or delete all is basically a strawman argument, because it's absurd to keep each and every single list of ethnic cross section that can be created, ignoring other policies that may call for their deletion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like I said before, no one has the opinion that we should give carte-blanche to create any list that would be in violation of deletion policies. But do you honestly think that the deleted lists are any less notable or more in violation of deletion policy than the lists that are being kept? Obviously, existing policy is not being applied evenly. Leuko 13:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The articles under consideration deal with notable ethnic groups. The solution is very simple, and it does not involve blanking or deletion. If there are fewer than 10 notable individuals in a particular ethnic group, such as Hmong, the list of notable individuals could be merged into the Hmong American article and a redirect from "List of Hmong Americans" to that section. If an ethnic group has no individuals of note in the U.S., such as Twa-Americans, then such a list is not merited. The fact is, our editors--particularly the long-time ones--are generally quite reasonable, and thus the lists are on the whole well constructed and helpful to our users, each focusing on a notable ethnic groups in the United States. If there were no notable individuals from that ethnic community, the article would not exist, or it should be deleted. Reasonableness must prevail in all instances, in everything we do. Badagnani 04:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, reasonableness has not been prevailing, hence the need for this discussion. Leuko 13:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Yes, it's clear that most of those deletes, against consensus, of well-sourced pages were an aberration and perpetrated by editors with strong "delete" POV, as clearly stated on their user pages. I beleve you have such a statement on yours? Badagnani 00:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, you are commenting on the contributor, rather than the content, but I guess I have to say it again. There is a lot of crap on WP - from nn autobiographies to corporate spam. This, and any other violation of WP policy is what I feel we should delete. I am not hellbent on deletion and do not want to delete wide swaths of WP for the fun of it. Again, please see WP:AGF. Leuko 00:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Yes, I'm commenting on the contributor. My eyes did not lie when I saw these notations on the editors' user pages, and neither did they when I saw articles deleted against clear consensus to not delete. Some of the pages deleted were among the best referenced of all of them, containing over 100 footnotes to reliable sources. The pages were not "crappy" (and I do take offense at this implication!). Do not continue doing your best to destroy others' research materials, which are impeccably sourced and notable. Badagnani 00:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, you really need to take a deep breath and read what I wrote while not WP:ABF. I never said that these lists were crappy, nor that they should be deleted. In fact, I would be perfectly fine with restoring the deleted lists as an obvious miscarriage of consensus and common sense. But I just feel that all the lists should be held to the same standards, and not be subject to piecemeal deletion or restoration. Leuko 00:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Break 2 edit

  • In general, I would vote keep, although I haven't looked at many of these lists specifically. List of Native Americans is basically a super-list for List of Native American musicians and List of Native American leaders (which is admittedly pretty incomplete). Without the super-list, we lose some navigability for the sub-lists. So should we look at deleting sublists like these, too? In general, I find lists easier to navigate than categories - categories are limited by allowing viewing of only 200 per page, lists often include things like tribal membership or dates of birth so I can see which persons I might be interested in, lists aren't as often recursive like categories can be, lists are easier to maintain as new additions show up in watchlists. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As long as the list is structured in some way, serving a navigational and organizational purpose (like the way List of Dutch Americans is structured by field), I see no reason why such a list should be deleted. Certainly there are lists here that serve no purpose and just duplicate categories. Those should be deleted or restructured. Preferably the latter. Looking at WP:NOT, I don't see anything under the directory listing that would apply here. -Chunky Rice 17:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The admin closing the previous AfD's cited WP:NOT#DIR subsection 5, "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations", which I don't agree 100% in the application of. Leuko 18:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really disagree with that rationale. What's the over-cross categorization here? Ethicity and nationality? Here, the groups are inherently notable. (I could find plenty of sources talking specifically about the Chinese-american community, for example). Over cross-categorization is when you start narrowing the group by arbitrary characteristics, and end up with a more-or-less non-notable group. -Chunky Rice 18:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't particularly agree with the rationale either, but somehow it was upheld in WP:DRV. Leuko 18:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The participants in that AfD and subsequent DRV do not represent general consensus. While we should certainly consider what happened, we are not bound by that precedent. I'm making a policy argument here. If you, or anybody disagree with it, I'd welcome discussion. But unless somebody wants to actually argue the rationale raised in the AfD/DRV, I see no reason why we should feel bound by them. The closing rationale is the opinion of one admin (who, in my opinion, substituted his own rationale instead of evaluating the consensus of the discussion). And the opinions of admins aren't any more valuable than those of regular editors, anyway. Hell, I'm an admin, and I think he was wrong. -Chunky Rice 19:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, since only admins can interpret consensus at WP:AFD and WP:DRV, in fact their opinions are more important than a regular user's. So if the consensus here is that the closure of these AfD's and endorsement of deletion without comment at DRV are wrong, where does that leave us? Leuko 00:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what the question is. We should evaluate and discuss the policy. We just shouldn't obsess about what Neil thinks about it. If he wants to participate, he can. -Chunky Rice 02:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. If we can't get consensus that broad ethnic-group lists like "List of German Americans" should stay or go, we could probably come to consensus that ethnic group sublists should stay, especially if they include information that couldn't go into the equivalent category. WP:NOT#DIRECTORY explicitly notes that there's nothing wrong with List of Jewish American musicians. A list structured the way List of Dutch Americans is structured would probably get consensus support as well. It's essentially the same thing as List of Jewish American musicians, except it's a bunch of lists like that combined. Similarly, lists by ethnic group could be replaced by something like Lists of Irish-Americans or Lists of African Americans which are essentially lists of lists. Alternatively, you could replace these last two with categories if that were appropriate.Noroton 18:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have come down on the side of deletion on these pages. My problem is definition. If there is not explicit definition, you're creating grab-bag lists and asking for edit wars. Regarding Noroton's suggestions right above me, two issues come up. First, Jewish American musicians is entirely different from German-Americans. You can be both explicitly Jewish and American. What makes a German-American? One entry on the German-American page said "his father's grandfather was German". So that makes him German-American? That's one eighth German, and seven eighths something else. I just looked at Dutch-Americans and found this - "Most of Grable's recent ancestors were American, but her distant heritage included Dutch, Irish, German and English.[1][2]" This is a double-referenced entry, and it includes three other nationalities. Does Betty Grable go on four different xxx-American lists? This is nonsense. And it's not just a matter of editing. Without explicit definitions for ALL these lists, I remove Betty Grable and the original poster reverts and Wikipedia gets nowhere. Those who add entries will always fight for "their" work, and to hell with good sense.

I believe that without explicit definitions, these lists all fail. Every entry needs a reference or it gets deleted. and there should be an explicit limit on membership. German American Immmigrants is a good definition. Maybe two German-American immigrant parents makes you German-American. I can't see how a German father and an Irish-American mother makes you German-American. So here's a question: can requirements be binding on future editors? Or does consensus change? If a decision here is not binding, then I wash my hands of the whole thing. With explicit definitions, I'd go with Keep. Without, it's a Delete. References alone don't solve the problem - the Betty Grable example above is a classic. Nor does the structure of the Dutch American page resolve my issues with these lists. MarkBul 02:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Well, then what makes a Jewish American? Do both parents have to be Jewish, only one, or do converts count? It is only ethnic Jews or anybody practicing the religion? I don't think that list is any different from the others - it still suffers from ambiguity of definition. I completely agree that a policy should be developed with explicit inclusion criteria and a requirement for WP:RSs or the addition gets deleted. The requirements can be binding, in a fashion similar to WP:N, and they could be global for all lists of this type. I mean the consensus the exact criteria may change (i.e. 1/2 vs. 1/4), but that's WP. If we come to a consensus that these lists are not a violation of WP:NOT, then maybe we could hash out some preliminary criteria. Leuko 02:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a question of "what makes you a German-American?" but rather, what are the limits for inclusion on the list. For groups that would potentially have thousands of notable people, it makes sense to establish limits. For example: 1st generation immigrant, at least 1 parent is a first generation immigrant, or if their ethnic/nationality identity is part of what makes them notable. Perhaps these standards could be agreed upon at the project level or they could be determined on a list by list basis. Nposs 02:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest coming to a consensus on the criteria for inclusion on a project-wide level. Doing things list by list is why we have the mess we currently have. I mean there could be exceptions, but I don't see how a 1/8 Swedish American is any more worthy of inclusion in a list than a 1/8 Chinese American. Leuko 02:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I take back my suggestions. The problem is that not all of the lists are comparable. For example, German American is a "nation + America" identity, whereas Hmong American is a "ethnicity + American" identity. We also have "continent + American" and "region + identity." I doubt we could agree on the same standards of inclusion for each group. We might, however, be able to set up guidelines for inclusion like: long lists should be divided into more detailed categories (e.g. "List of African American Composers"), or famous people who have a distant <insert ethnicity here> relative but otherwise make no referenceable claim to an identity/heritage/etc. should not be included. Nposs 03:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are all hertiages, and I fail to see the difference between the groups. For example, you can be 1/8 Dutch or 1/8 Hmong. (i.e. both with some relative of that group). Leuko 04:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem of whether so-and-so are "German American" or "Jewish American" or etc etc is a simple one to solve - have a particular individual been referred to or labeled as "German American" by sources? If not, they shouldn't be on the list. Note that I'm not talking about whether or not a person's parents have been said to be German, but whether or not the person himself/herself have been referred to as specifically "German American". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is something that we will have to hammer out, i.e. if one must specifically be referred to as <x>-American in a WP:RS, or parents, or Grandparents, etc. Leuko 14:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Those are good observations which have not been raised before, but the apparent need to "do something" about the lists represents WP:INSTRUCTIONCREEP. The lists work fine because those editors working on them are knowledgeable, skilled, and reasonable, and always try to improve the lists so that they include only notable individuals, and that all lists are carefully sourced. Any problems with the lists can be continually improved, as we do with any other article. No need to delete the articles entirely, which is unhelpful to our users. Badagnani 03:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a majority of the lists are not referenced, contain non-notable individuals, and worse yet, contain uncited people with no reference to their ethnicity/heritage in their WP article. Would you consider WP:N instruction creep? We really should have some standards of encyclopedic objectivity, rather than a free-for-all. But this is straying from the original issue as to whether these lists violate WP:NOT#DIR. Leuko 04:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. That just says that these lists need improvement, not deletion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all "List of X-Americans" articles under consideration and restore the ones that were deleted - Improve, don't delete. We must exercise reasonableness in everything we do. The deletion of several articles, one of which had over 100 footnotes, is unreasonable. Badagnani 04:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all these articles and restore the ones that were deleted. The arguments for deletion are a gross abuse of WP process, trying to prove things by selective citation and misinterpretation of WP standards and guidelines, and an affront to the editors who spent their time creating and editing these lists. Hmains 05:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, this is not an WP:AFD. Second of all, I fail to see how having objective criteria for inclusion, similar to WP:N, are an affront to anybody. Leuko 14:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and Strong Keep. Categories do not provide sufficient data such as birth dates, death dates, occupations, etc. Lists are extremely useful for reasearch for individuals seeking particular "X-Americans" to compare and contrast and garner some insight into other prominent members of a particular ethnic background. I also think these nominations for deletions were made for an obstructionist WP:POINT. ExRat 06:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, not an AfD, but I don't think trying to apply WP policies evenly is obstructionist. I would be fine with restoring the deleted lists, as this would be more egalitarian, but no one suggested that until today. Leuko 14:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all of these lists and avoid mass deletion. Evaluate them on a case-by-case basis, as some are notable while others may not be. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue with evaluating on a case by case basis is what are the criteria? I see a similar issue to the situation with populated places where who is to say that a village in Africa is more or less notable than a suburb in North America? Since there are numerous books on the topics of ethnic groups in the United States, the answer is to keep all and merge as appropriate. So if List of Fijian Americans was too insubstatial for a stand-alone list, it could be merged to List of Melanesian Americans, etc. Dhaluza 12:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The criteria are the same with evaluating any article on WP. If a certain African village has been written about by reliable sources, then that certain African village is notable enough to have an article. Please read WP:Notability. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've helped write WP:N so I am familiar with it. There are sufficient books written about various ethnic groups in the U.S. to support all of the major ethnic groups. The question then becomes is it useful to dicker over the relative notability of the smaller ethnic groups to try to draw an arbitrary line that will just become a battle-front. Or do we just group the references generically and say that these cross categorizations are encyclopedic and avoid the nonsense. Dhaluza 17:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • To me, it's unattainable to say that all these cross categorisations are encyclopedic. That would allow for lists of ethnic cross sections that may never have been written about, and thus violating WP:N and WP:Verifiability. And it's a move that'll basically come back to bite us in the butt if lists of non-notable ethnic groups are created and editors object to them because of any number of policies. This is not to say that the lists presented here in this discussion are not all notable - I'm not familiar with many of those ethnic groups so I don't know. But I don't even understand why we should frame the discussion of one particular list in the context of the notability of another list. For example, one of the arguments presented here is that: a list of German Americans was deleted, so should all these other lists be deleted as well? Now I am not that familiar with the topic of German Americans, so I'm not going to comment on the justifiability of that list having been deleted. But the discussion on whether to keep or delete one article shouldn't be dependent on another article. There's no policy basis on that to the best of my knowledge. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Once again, the rationale used to deleted the List of German Americans (and others) directly applies to all the other lists, as they are all essentially the cross-categorizations. German-Americans are no more a cross-categorization than Asian-Americans. Leuko 23:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • You keep mentioning the German American list as if I agree with its deletion, but I have never said I support its deletion, nor have I voted to delete it. I repeat - I do not know enough about that ethnic cross section to say whether or not the list should have been deleted. If you believe it needs to be undeleted, then take it to DRV. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Actually I have mentioned a lot of lists (7, I believe) which have been deleted for various reasons, which are identical in all respects to the lists which everyone is so rabid about keeping. I fail to see the dichotomy. Leuko 01:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals edit

Rather than going around in circles, I would like to suggest the following proposals in an attempt to gauge where we are in regards to consensus. Feel free to add comments, or your own proposal. Leuko 23:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 1 edit

Lists of members of notable (per WP:N) Americans per ethnic group are not over cross-categorization as specified in WP:NOT. Therefore, the lists mentioned above should be kept, and the recently deleted lists mentioned above should be restored.

Endorse edit

  1. Leuko 23:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Endorse as to general principle regarding over cross-categorization. However, regarding lists deleted, I would only endorse restoration if the only reason they were deleted was that it was an over cross-categorization. If they were delted because they were unstructured and redundant, for example, they should probably remain deleted or at least userfied and structured before being restored. -Chunky Rice 19:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Endorse At the very least, lists should be allowed for all groups which are notable and where membership can be sourced to reliable sources. All of the deleted lists above are for groups which are notable, and the lists had numerous citations. The admin who closed to delete most of the deleted lists believed that the arguments to keep arguments only justified the article (e.g. Norwegian American) and not the list. This fails to address however, that if notability and reliable sources can't be used to justify a list, what can? The admin didn't state which of the delete arguments convinced him, simply noting that he was "far more swayed by the arguments to delete, which are better rooted in policy." However, despite the supposed endorsement at DRV, it is quite clear that these arguments, no matter how convincing, or "rooted in policy", certain people might find them, do not represent a consensus interpretation of Wikipedia policy. The policy does not clearly prohibit lists of this type, or they would all be deleted. All of the deleted lists noted above should thus be restored for this reason, per deletion policy, which says that articles are deleted "if there is consensus to do so", not "if the particular closing adminsistrator is swayed by the arguments to delete". DHowell 23:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose edit

  1. This is unmaintainable because we can have possibly tens of thousands of ethnic cross sections. It will also probably violate existing WP policies on notability and verifiability because there will be theoretical ethnic cross sections that have never been written about. Each of these lists need to be examined on its own merits. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hence the requirement that the groups be notable in the proposal. I think we can all agree that the groups listed above are all notable. As has been mentioned many times, this is not a blanket permission for lists of Fijian Serbs, etc. Leuko 00:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The deleted lists went through an AFD, which reached a community consensus to delete them. Therefore, they should not be restored. Most of the other lists are just encyclopedia unnotable as the ones that were deleted. Mad Jack 22:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you believe that AfD and DRV are a perfect representation of "community conensus"? Can you demonstrate what distinguishes the deleted lists from all of the lists which were kept by "community consensus", other than simply their AfD closures? DHowell 23:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 1a edit

Lists of notable (per WP:N) people belonging to a notable (per WP:N) ethnic group are not non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations or lists of loosely associated topics as specified in WP:NOT#DIR. Therefore, the lists mentioned above, being lists of notable people in notable ethnic groups which did not demonstrably violate any other policies as determined by their respective AfD discussions, should be kept, and the recently deleted lists mentioned above should be restored.

Endorse edit

  1. Endorse as an alternative to Proposal 1, which hopefully addresses Hong Qi Gong's concerns. DHowell 01:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Leuko 00:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose edit

Proposal 2 edit

Inclusion criteria (similar to WP:N should be developed to: 1) Determine if an ethnic group is sufficently large and notable enough to warrant a separate list. 2) Determine notability criteria for individuals added to the lists. 3) Determine criteria related to ethnicity, i.e. how ethnic does one have to be to be included on a list of <x>-Americans.

Endorse edit

  1. Leuko 23:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Endorse 1 and 2) should probably just be our standard notability criteria. Not sure about 3. -Chunky Rice 19:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Endorse. If these lists are kept this should be followed through on. Mad Jack 22:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Endorse, with the caveat that it is not necessary for there to be a one-size fits all approach. While there should be a single set of clear and specific criteria for what makes a group notable and a list appropriate in the first place, after that there is no reason that the criteria for who is listed must be exactly the same for each group. It might be entirely reasonable, for instance, if "List of German Americans" only included first-generation immigrants and their children; while "List of Hmong Americans" might include any notable American with verifiable Hmong ancestry. DHowell 23:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose edit

Proposal 3 edit

Each list needs to be examined on its own merits according to existing policies regarding if it should be kept or deleted. This may or may not mean that all the lists presented at the top of this discussion will be kept, but it would prevent possibly non-notable lists from being created and kept, such as lists of Fijian Serbs, Ethiopian Japanese, Botswanian Malays, Argentine Zambian, etc, or any number of probably non-notable ethnic cross sections.

Endorse edit

  1. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Endorse to the extent that aside from general principles established by proposals 1 and 2, there may be other reasons (lack of structure) for lists such as these to be deleted. In general, however, Proposal 2 should cover issues such as the notability of Fijian Serbs. -Chunky Rice 19:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Endorse if it is made clear that arguments which would apply against the very existence of all lists of this type are not acceptable reasons to delete (we could add them to WP:ATA). This would include reasons such as "this is what categories are for", "there is no way to determine who is an <X>-American", "lists of this type violate WP:NOT#DIR because they are indiscriminate, trivial, loosely associated, etc.", "unmaintainable because there are millions of <X>-Americans", "we shouldn't be categorizing people by ethnicity", "this list includes non-notable people", "this list includes people who are only <n>% <X>", "this is overcategorization", etc. DHowell 00:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Endorse --Alabamaboy 00:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose edit

  1. Lists being examined individually (as in the past) has led to sporadic and uneven application of WP policies, which has resulted in many lists being deleted which are essentially the same as those being kept. As mentioned in Proposal 1, only groups notable per WP:N would be permitted, and the non-notable cross-sections would not have their own lists. Leuko 01:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which would basically render Proposal 1 pointless, because we'd have to apply notability tests on each of these lists individually. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We still have to decide whether these lists are all a violation of WP:NOT globally, and worry about the notability of the individual lists later. Leuko 01:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an obvious hint - don't nominate any of these lists for deletion until you actually have a convincing argument for deletion. And no, the fact that the German American list was deleted does not automatically mean any other lists should be deleted. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it does, because if it is a violation of WP:NOT, then all these lists are. Leuko 19:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree. Each list needs to be evaluated on a case-to-case basis. Just because one is notable, doesn't make all similar lists notable, and vice versa. The example ethnic cross sections mentioned by this proposal points this out. Just because "African American" is a notable ethnic cross section, that doesn't automatically make "Fijian Serb" a notable ethnic cross section. But again, this is not a comment on what I think of the lists mentioned here that have been deleted. I am neutral to their deletion because I don't know enough about those ethnic cross sections. If editors believe they should have been kept, then take them individually to DRV. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HongQiGong, I would strongly recommend you actually read the AfD's which led to the deletion of the lists noted above which were deleted:
Your point might be valid if you could find the arguments to delete in those discussions which would not apply equally to all of the ethnic American lists being discussed here. Even if each list should be evaulated on a case-by-case basis, it doesn't justify the arbitrary deletion of lists for which all the same arguments were made, and there was no congnizable reason given as to what makes the deleted articles different than the kept articles. DHowell 00:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I can't figure out what valid arguments the closing admins used to delete those lists other than the list of German Americans, which the admin specifically cites as a list of loosely-associated subjects. I have no idea if he is correct in that assessment, but if an ethnic cross section is notable, that would make a list of people in that ethnic cross section not a simple list of loosely-associated subjects. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I don't think anyone here is arguing for the retention of truly non-notable ethnic categorizations; the problem is the arbitrary deletion of lists of ethnic groups which are clearly notable. This also illustrates the utter failure of the AfD and DRV proceses as currently implemented to handle controversial cases like this, which is another discussion that needs to happen, but not necessarily here. DHowell 11:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand User:Leuko correctly, he wants the lists that are listed above to either all be deleted or all be kept. Firstly, I find it difficult to believe that he's actually done all the reading and researching to figure out that absolutely either all of the lists above are notable or non-notable. Secondly, I personally don't know enough about all the lists above, which is why I have to emphatically say that each of the lists need to be examined on a case-by-case basis. Like I said, for example, I have no idea if the deletion of the German American list was really justifiable. Maybe it deserved to be deleted, or maybe it needs to be un-deleted. I don't know. But what happens with one list should have no bearing on any other lists. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I can't speak for Leuko, but I agree with you that lists should be considered on a case-by-case basis. But, I have seen the lists that were deleted (but not all of the ones that were not deleted), and read their deletion debates. As far as I can tell the reasons given for deletion would equally apply to all of the lists above. You even seem to have acknowledged this. The point that I think Leuko is trying to make (and if not, then it is a point that I am trying to make) is that if the reasons given for deleting the lists that were deleted are valid, then all of theses lists should be deleted. If the reasons are not valid, then those lists that were deleted should be restored. Seriously, if you can think of any valid reason that List of Norwegian Americans would violate policy but List of Dutch Americans would not, I'd love to hear them. This has no bearing on whether there might be some lists above that were not deleted which should be deleted for other reasons. The current status, however, is that we have some lists deleted and some lists kept, where there is no discernable difference between the lists other than who participated in and closed the respective deletion discussions. I believe, and I hope you would too, that this is just not right and needs to be fixed. Since DRV has already failed to resolve this problem, we are now having this discussion. DHowell 04:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I can't speak for those lists that were deleted. I can't even tell what the reasons were that the closing admins deleted three of them. As for the German American list, whether or not it really is a list of loosely associated items (per deleting admin), I personally do not know, but for many of the lists mentioned here, I do not believe they are loosely associated items for the fact that their ethnic cross sections are notable. And again, whether or not one list was deleted should have no bearing on another list. Equally applying existing WP standards could possibly mean that some lists will be kept and others will be deleted - this is how WP functions for all articles. You apply the same standards, and some articles are deleted while others are kept. I really don't know enough about Norwegian Americans to say whether or not I think that list should be kept or deleted. If you believe it needs to be restored, then take it to DRV. However, just because that list is deleted, does not automatically mean all the lists mentioned above should be deleted. There's no basis in policy for that. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, DHowell. I have made this point, multiple times, but we just seem to be going around in circles. If some of these lists are determined to be lists of loosely associated items, then all these lists are loosely associated. A list of Dutch or Asian Americans is no more tightly associated than a list of German or British Americans. Leuko 02:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 3a edit

Each list may be examined on its own merits according to existing policies regarding if it should be kept or deleted. However, there is no consensus that lists of this type in general violate WP:NOT; therefore that is not a valid policy reason to delete these lists. Only if there is consensus that a specific list violates policies in a way that can be distinguished from other lists of this type in general, should a list be, or remain, deleted. This may or may not mean that all the lists presented at the top of this discussion will be kept, but it would prevent possibly non-notable lists from being created and kept, such as lists of Fijian Serbs, Ethiopian Japanese, Botswanian Malays, Argentine Zambian, etc, or any number of probably non-notable ethnic cross sections.

Endorse edit

  1. Endorse as an alternative to Proposal 3, which will hopefully address Leuko's concerns. DHowell 01:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Endorse with the caveat that "This may or may not mean that all the lists presented at the top of this discussion will be kept" should be removed, as I fail to see the difference between the deleted lists and the kept lists presented on the top of this page. Leuko 00:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I am striking out that phrase; however, my only reason for including it was because I have not examined all of the lists above which were not deleted (have they all been through AfD?) to see if they are indeed notable. I do agree that the lists which have been deleted should be restored. DHowell 10:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose edit

Break 3 edit

  • I believe the proposals above are too limited in scope and do not address many of the problems with retention/deletion of ethnic group lists. Specifically, they do not address many of the assertions made by the deletionists. Perhaps looking at some of the arguments made in articles that were retained in the recent deletion round will help, in particular the arguments of Pia. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hungarian Americans and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bahamian Americans for ideas. Hmains 19:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you sugest we do, then? Most of the arguments made in those AfDs were also made in the AfDs of the lists that were deleted. None of the arguments seem to be able to sway the deletionists. We are trying to come up with a consensus that is clearer than what is already in policy and guidelines, so that inconsistent results based on who happens to close the discussion can be avoided (and possibly fixed). How do we accomplish that? DHowell 05:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to category. It seems ridiculous to have articles on 'list of group X' when there are already categories for group X, which have generated lists.72.158.38.41 04:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. Specifically:
      "These methods should not be considered to be in competition with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the other. For example, since editors differ in style, some favor building lists while others favor building categories, allowing links to be gathered in two different ways, with lists often leapfrogging categories, and vice versa. One should not be deleted in favor of the other. Instead, each should be used to update the other. This provides two core methods of navigating Wikipedia. See the navigation menu at the top of Wikipedia:Contents. The "category camp" shouldn't dismantle Wikipedia's list-based navigation system, and the "list camp" shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system."
    DHowell 05:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with DHowell that lists and categories are not mutually exclusive, and can be complimentary. Lists can contain redlinks to articles that do not yet exist. Categories cannot be watched. They have different properties, and serve different purposes, and the idea that one trumps the other is one of the most widely held (and IMHO disruptive) misconceptions on WP. Dhaluza 11:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • My friend, you have worded in a few sentences what many users have being trying to argue in AfDs time and time again. With your permission, I'd like to use your argument against users who simply state that's what categories are for without explaining their reasoning. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 14:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You of course have my permission, and you didn't even need to ask for it: all original content submitted to Wikipedia, including talk page comments, is licensed under the GFDL. DHowell 02:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of African-American Officeholders During Reconstruction edit

DO NOT DELETE I created this page and other individuals have added to it. I feel that if the page is expanded so that it is not merely a list, and if it is refined, it will be a major contribution to wikipedia. I would argue similarly for all other list-like articles. Ladb2000

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups/Lists_of_Ethnic_Americans&oldid=164864780"