The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, and will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 14:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Asian Americans[edit]

List of Asian Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 17:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - That a list of German Americans was deleted does not mean that a list of Asian Americans should be deleted. The "Asian American" ethnic demographic is notable for being an official US government designation, and there is even an Asian American Heritage Month. Furthermore, the list does a lot more than what a category can do - it organises the individuals by occupation, and provide information for each individual. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Umm, there is a German Heritage Month too. How Asian do you have to be to be an Asian American? I feel all the arguments for deleting the previous list apply to this list as well. Leuko 18:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The List of German American AfD actually had more Keep votes than Delete votes, if I counted correctly. The closing admin's argument for deletion was loose association, and I highly disagree with the application of that argument on some of the lists (not all) that have been individually nominated for deletion. Inclusion on any one of these lists should be judged on the basis of the individual. Are there sources to back up that Such-and-Such or So-and-So are specifically considered "Asian American"? Note that I'm not talking about whether or not a person's father or mother is Asian. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, WP:AFD is not a vote (so counting is irrelevant), and the deletion decision was upheld at WP:DRV, so there must have been consensus. There were actually more arguments to delete other than WP:NOT#DIR, but since you bring that up, I don't see how any other list of persons of a certain nationality, ethnicity or religion are any more tightly associated, and less of a directory. Leuko 19:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • And the deletion of List of British Chinese people was overturned, relisted for AfD, and kept. Like I said, the fact that a list of German Americans was deleted does not mean all similar lists should be deleted. Furthermore, I did not say that AfDs are decided on vote count, I am saying I see no consensus established regarding these lists, and that I disagree with the application of the closing admin's argument of loose association on some of these lists. WP:NOT#DIR is not applicable here as you can see from the examples given in the policy that it pertains to articles or lists providing contact information and otherwise consumer-related information or how-to information. This is not such a list. And the whole point of listing these lists individually as opposed to en masse in the first place is because some of these lists should be kept and others deleted. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, that was closed as no-consensus, which is not the same as keep. And the closing admin cited precedent of other lists of the same type being kept. By that logic, all these lists, including List of British Chinese people should be deleted per the new consensus and precedent. And I am not sure why we had to list each individually, as it seems we are making the same comments on each individual AfD, so evidently, there really isn't a significant difference between them. Leuko 19:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "precedent" is irrelevant, however this should go as extreme overcategorisation. Bigdaddy1981 18:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Precedent is irrelevant, but the closing admin could do exactly what the closing admin did in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans — look at arguments that tied in with Wikipedia policy and discount the keep arguments that did not. (See Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus for how that's done.) The last item in WP:NOT#DIR was the crucial element in the closing admin's reasoning. IMHO, if editors who want to keep this list can provide good counter-arguments that (1) tie in with some Wikipedia policy and guidelines, or maybe at least (2) tie in with overriding, important Wikipedia encyclopedic goals, then it would save this article. Or perhaps an argument can be made that WP:NOT#DIR just doesn't apply. If none of that is done, this article is probably a goner. I'm neutral, but here's what I'm curious about, and answers to these might be good arguments: What is the encyclopedic use for this list? Is it a useful illustration of some other Wikipedia article(s)? Should it be broken up into Chinese-American/Indian-American/Japanese-American lists if those don't already exist? Noroton 21:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong, speedy keep - Notable subject and the article is an important aid for researchers. We only include notable individuals in these lists and they are well sourced. As with previous ethnic group nominations, this nomination, apparently done along with dozens if not hundreds of others all in a single day, is disruptive, WP:POINT, and does not enhance our encyclopedia. This manner of disruption should be eschewed in the strongest terms. Improve, don't delete. Badagnani 01:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Lists should be turned into categories.----^DarkTea© 01:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per above Elmao 06:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.