Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Belgian Americans

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 delete. Note a duplicate "keep" from DGG was not wholly ignored, as he made a different point. DHowell's excellent "keep" argument justifies the existence of our Belgian Americans and Swiss Americans articles very well but fails to address why we should have a list. Badagnani's argument consists of "Keep as it is encyclopaedic", without evidencing why (the rest of his comments are not pertinent to this deletion discussion). Mikka and DGG's arguments, again, justify the Belgian Americans article very well, but fail to address why we also need a list. Only Kappa's argument has any real pertinence to this list, and given the number of deletions citing valid policy, I can only close this as a delete. Neil ム 09:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Belgian Americans

First of all, this appears to be a NATIONALITY-NATIONALITY list instead of the typical ETHNICITY-NATIONALITY list. It should be deleted because of its forced amalgamation of potentially completely unrelated people. Last, it is in line with the recent nominations of List of English Americans and List of Portuguese Americans. Bulldog123 08:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Bulldog123 03:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is what categories are for.----^DarkTea © 12:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per intersection of nationalities/loosely associated items . Replace with category (if that's appropriate) Corpx 16:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all lists of this type. Artw 22:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should be in a category only.--JForget 23:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Detailed, sourced, encylopedic. There's no reason why there can't be both a category and an article. Mandsford 00:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. So broad and indiscriminating as to be practically trivial. VanTucky ^(talk) 16:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LIST criteria - useful as navigation tools and for the information content themselves. A typical college student doing research on Belgian- and Swiss-Americans could sorely use these lists. Bearian 18:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And so why does this not apply to List of English Americans which you chose to delete? Bulldog123 07:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Taken from the List Articles essay:

"To avoid problems with lists, the criteria for inclusion must comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. That is, if someone is listed as an X, that person must have been identified as an X by a reliable published source. Also be aware of original research when selecting the criteria for inclusion: use a criterion that is widely agreed upon rather than inventing new criteria that cannot be verified as notable or that is not widely accepted.

Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in difficult or contentious topics. Beware of those cases in which the definitions themselves are disputed. Many lists on Wikipedia have been created without any membership criteria, and editors are left to guess about what or whom should be included only from the name of the list. Even if it might "seem obvious" what qualifies for membership in a list, explicit is better than implicit".

If lists of these types are kept, they should all be required to follow the suggestions above. Explicit criteria should be at the top of the page, and citations should be required for each entry - otherwise, it's personal research. MarkinBoston 22:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Explicit may be better than implicit, but implicit is still acceptable. Where the matter is discussed in the WP article, the basis for inclusion is clear. DGG (talk) 06:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. As with most of these kind of lists, very loose connection between listees. Mad Jack 21:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete suffers from numerous problems: how Fooian must someone be to listed here and what WP:RSes will tell us that the individual is sufficiently Fooian, and how exactly is being XX% Fooian important to categorize based upon. Once again, WP should not be categorizing on race/ethnicity. Here, where Foo is a multi-racial country, it makes even less sense. Carlossuarez46 00:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - encyclopedic and needed for our users. Contribute constructively, not destructively, to our project, and do not WP:POINT disruptively propose this article for deletion again, thanks. I see that the "delete page regulars" have made their appearance, but they shall not destroy valuable content in such an arbitrary manner. Badagnani 03:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For Swiss-Americans, there are reliable sources such as Prominent Americans of Swiss Origin: A Compilation Prepared by the Swiss-American Historical Society, The Swiss in the United States, and Swiss in Wisconsin, and plenty more. For Belgian-Americans, I note that the Library of Congress has determined there are enough published books on the subject to make Belgian Americans a subject heading, and One America: The History, Contributions, and Present Problems of Our Racial and National Minorities devotes 6 pages to the subject, belying the claim that such categorization is "indiscriminate", "trivial", or a "loose connection" and thus a violation of WP:NOT. The remaining arguments to delete boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. DHowell 05:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You justified Belgian Americans and Swiss Americans, not these lists. All I can say, for now at least, is the only other international wikipedia which has this list is the Belgian wikipedia, with a total of 10 names, all of which appear to have been born in Belgium. That alone speaks volumes. You could use your long list of reliable sources if anyone dare nominate Category:Belgian Americans, but here it is off topic. I just think you're thinking of a very different use of WP:IINFO than what people are expressing here. Bulldog123 06:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that in numerous past AFDs and CFDs you chose to delete all text entirely rather than merge it into articles such as Belgian Americans shows your bad faith in each of these attempts to delete carefully crafted articles that provide our users with important information about notable inhabitants of the United States. Please stop. Badagnani 07:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I chose? I suppose I'm to blame for deletion of List of English Americans too, right? Bulldog123 07:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously making "What about X?" arguments? And how is a book about prominent Swiss Americans "off-topic" when discussing a list of notable Swiss Americans? And what part of WP:IINFO exactly says that lists of notable people who are members of notable ethinic groups are not allowed? You see, I've actually read WP:NOT#IINFO, and I just don't see it. On the contrary, the idea that policy prohibits such lists seems to be personal analysis or synthesis of material that appears to advance a position. If lists aren't justified by being verifiable to reliable sources, what criteria exactly will justify any list in your mind? Or do you think all lists should be deleted? DHowell 20:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm responding to User:Badagnani's suggestion that I'm menacingly deleting List of Americans, which I don't think has anything to do with WP:WAX since that seems to refer to arguments to avoid when !voting. I do believe your many links are superfluous here because the question of whether a Swedish American is notable would be relevant if we were deleting Swedish Americans or Category:Swedish-Americans. The argument for deletion isn't "Being Swedish-American isn't notable." Moreso, I would say, it is "Being Swedish-American isn't notable for EVERYONE who has some Swedish background" and certainly not on the same level. WP:LIST, nor any policy that I can think of, suggestions we MUST keep every list that is verifiable. No, obviously, I don't think all lists should be deleted, and neither does anyone else here. Bulldog123 20:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you haven't told us why different (and stricter) criteria should be applied to List of Swedish Americans than to Category:Swedish-Americans. Apparently, the only arguments you have made for deletion here are it being a "forced amalgamation of potentially completely unrelated people", an opinion which is not supported by any policy nor consensus; and that List of English Americans was deleted, which is exactly a WP:WAX argument. And supposing I accept that your statement "Being Swedish-American isn't notable for EVERYONE who has some Swedish background" is an argument against listing EVERY notable person who has some Swedish background; then what is wrong with a list of notable Americans for whom having Swedish background IS notable? DHowell 01:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The english Americans article was deleted in part because it appeared unmanageable. In retrospect, that may have been a mistake, and once these are kept, some brave person should try to re-creat the article with care t meet objections that have been raised there and at these discussions. All ethnic groups are notable, and this includes "hypenated-Americans"; the definition is possible because it can be self-identification without use having to worry about whether true or false--we're about V, not truth, as I recall; people placing themselves in an ethic group are a close relationship--not as close a biological parentage, but perhaps as close as geography or college attended; lists like these serve a useful function, and so on, as discussed at all the other Afds. I would say that every individual one of them is justified and keepable. DGG (talk) 00:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A notable notion. Classification not POV. `'Míkka 01:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if there was any argument that this is a non-notable intersection DHowell has refuted it. That leaves the same old "categories can do this" argument, which is based on the completely ridiculous idea that readers will click through a plain list of names to find out who they were. Kappa 07:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. —Kappa 07:49, 31 August 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.