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The result was Nomination Withdrawn.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 14:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Korean Americans[edit]

List of Korean 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 17:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable ethnic group, and that a list of German Americans was deleted does not mean this list should be deleted. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: An article on the ethnic group would be encyclopedic and welcome, however, apparently the new consensus is that these list of people by nationality/ethnicity are not appropriate for WP. Leuko 18:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure I see such consensus anywhere. In fact, 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. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:55, 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) 19:24, 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 19:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletions. —PC78 21:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong, speedy keep - 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 01:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Lists should be turned into categories.----^DarkTea© 01:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep -- Fuzheado | Talk 02:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. While Wikipedia may not be a compendium of lists, these listings are extraordinarily helpful with research, as those searching for individuals of a particular ethnic background can easily find specific individuals and possibly contrast with others in the article. These listings for deletion are disruptive, in my opinion. They smack of nationalism and seem to presume that Americans have no (or shouldn't have) interest in the extreme diversity of the ethnic fabric of America. ExRat 02:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And a category can't do this? To me, voting "Strong Keep" on some List of _x_ Americans, while deleting others smacks of nationalism. Leuko 03:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: These lists often (or should) be referenced with birth and death dates, occupations, etc. Categories don't do that. ExRat 04:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. I agree with ExRat and Badagnani. In addition, this mass nomination is too POINTY. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:39, 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.