Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Afro-Latinos (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 12:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

List of Afro-Latinos
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

User:Off2riorob insists on blanking the list. I think having an empty article is stupid, if there is no content worth keeping we should simply delete the article. Schuhpuppe (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't think this article establishes enough notability since it is too general. I don't think we need a list of every ethnic group, we don't have general lists of all white/black people of notability either. Additionally, I think the criteria established in this article will be very difficult to prove for each an every person listed there. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 17:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply Notability has already been found to be given in the first discussion. --Schuhpuppe (talk) 18:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Ive read the guidelines at Stand-alone lists, and i dont see an absolute requirement that each name on a list have a source cited in the list showing their qualifications for inclusion. lists like List of Asian Americans dont have such citations. This may be a failing of that list, but then this is true for literally thousands of stand alone lists with the exact same inclusion issues. I believe that while its always helpful to have citations within a stand alone list showing the item qualifies for inclusion, in cases like this list, having the target article show the persons afro latino status is adequate. The definition of afro latino, while somewhat convoluted, is rationally defined. The lede paragraph is speaking to the wikipedia editors, not the readers, and that text needs to be changed (i will fix it if it survives afd). I know that "other stuff exists" is not a valid argument, but consensus and precedent shows that we accept, or at least widely tolerate, identity lists like this without the references being here. Of course, any redlinked names or unlinked names need reliable citations.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Nominated because someone insists on blanking the list, and nominator thinks that having a blanked article is stupid? Too bad you don't think that it's stupid for an editor to insist on blanking the article.  I think that renominating an article on the same day that the last debate closed has to be a record.  Assuming good faith on this one is like turning the other cheek-- it's what we're supposed to do, but there are some situations where it invites trouble.  Mandsford 21:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention that I do think the article should be kept, provided the content (or at least part of it) is added again. --Schuhpuppe (talk) 22:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Then I'm not sure why you nominated it for deletion. I'd revert Off2robrio's changes myself and face the consequences, but I'm not allowed to do that because you put a deletion template on there.  At least one editor was persuaded that the article should be deleted, so I don't even see how you can withdraw it now.  You might want to contact an administrator for guidance on what to do next.  I imagine that people will offer their opinions about all of this, and you might not like some of what you read.  Mandsford 23:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I did revert his changes. Three times :). I intended to create the AfD sort of as Off2riorob's proxy -- it's him who wants the content gone, I just want it to be done properly or not at all. But yes, there probably would have been better ways to sort this out.
 * Anyway, what's wrong with reverting his changes? It's not like you couldn't readd the AfD template or copy the text in manually. --Schuhpuppe (talk) 23:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There's a similar case going on right now over essentially the same problem-- an AfD discussion was closed as a no consensus, an editor then removed the content on grounds that it was unsourced and could not be put back in until it was sourced, and people who attempted to revert the change were accused of incivility.  That type of aggressive act didn't go unchallenged, hence it's on a request for editor assistance board for a ruling from the powers that be on whether that should be considered as disruptive.  I'm not sure where anybody got the idea came about that he or she should go through articles and immediately remove anything that doesn't have a citation next to it.  Nearly everyone is acquainted with the polite notices described in Citation needed.  The only situation in which unsourced content "must be removed immediately" is where there is "unsourced contentious material about living persons" (which is consistent with the possibility of immediate and irreparable harm), see WP:V.  There is nothing contentious or libelous, I would add, if someone were to be mistakenly described as black.  Although Off2riorob may feel that he is in the right, blanking a page cannot be described as anything other than disruptive.  We're all part of a community here. Mandsford 23:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - there is no list at all. I don't know what mess a couple of editors are creating here but this AFD only just closed about this article and reading it may well help you to understand. Also User Schuhpuppe has nominated the article for deletion and then hilariously attempted to vote comment in a keep manner. Off2riorob (talk) 09:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There once was a list, but someone blanked it... --Schuhpuppe (talk) 12:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You know, I think that what we have here is a larger problem that may need to be dealt with at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I've looked at comments left on my page (User talk:Mandsford) and on User talk:Schuhpuppe, User talk:Tivedshambo and User talk:Mike Cline, all within the last 24 hours and by the same editor, some of them rather hostile, and I think that in all four cases, people have done well to keep their cool.  I don't like what I see, particularly statements to others that they may be blocked.  I've taken controversies up to WP:ANI in the past, and I've been taken there myself, and I find that it's better than losing my temper.  I don't want anybody blocked, but I do want hostile comments to stop.  Mandsford 14:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep no substantial reason why not to have such a list. We already hve thousands of similar lists (for example, List of black Britons). The argument saying it's unsourced is wrong, since the sourcing should be in each individual article and not after each listing in the list. Also, I'd consider splitting this huge list into the various countries in Latin America (List of Afro-Brazilians, List of Afro-Cubans, etc.)  Maashatra11 (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Additions must be sourced reliably. Other stuff exists is just a poor reflection on Wikipedia and not a reason to keep. The idea that you can create huge uncited lists with a claim that the claim is reliably sourced on another article is against all wikipedia guidelines. Off2riorob (talk) 16:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll add that I think this is a useful list per wp:LIST. It can be splitted though, as I stated above. Maashatra11 (talk) 17:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But if the contents of the list ARE sourced regarding their ethnicity in the articles on the people here, then all we need to do is add those exact same sources to this list. and if they arent, we remove the names. My problem with deletion here is that this is an inherently notable subject, with clear inclusion criteria. WP has no deadline or timetable. so the list is unsourced, and others like it are unsourced: big deal, lots of material is unsourced, we remove the unsourced material, leave the sourced, and if the subject is notable, it stays. We have to assume good faith here, otherwise, how could we even accept CATEGORIES for articles? you go to "Category:Costa Rican people of Black African descent" and there are no sources. do we delete the category? of course not, but its assumed the articles are sourced properly. i have removed categories from articles where there is no source saying so, even when it seemed likely they were in that category. sometimes i do search for the source, or maybe i put a comment on the talk page alerting people. if its a controversial category, for a living person, i will delete it. I do get that having too much unsourced material in lists is really stupid looking, and potentially dumbs down WP. id like to see at least a statement next to each name saying what they are famous for, and their specific ethnicity. If someone wants to pay me to do this, (not a subject of the list, or an advocacy group), id be happy to set aside a half day to do this. however, despite my excessive hours logged here, i am (like all of us), a volunteer, and my eyes are bigger than my grasp, or time available to grasp. ok, ill get off my soapbox. Oh, and i do see value in maashatras idea of splitting, as the main article on afro-latins does link to more specific articles, and the category i cited is one such.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, lists are a bit evil imo and of little to no value, I don't like catagorys much, but at least there is some control at the article, there must or should or at least usually is some cited content in the article that supports the category Brazilian_people_of_Black_African_descent we already have such as this category. Lists by there very nature are policy wastelands and no one watches them and people add whatever they think is correct or whatever they find funny in some cases. It is also not an easy work to cite the ancestry of people. This list List of black Britons  has gone for colour instead of genetics and is another awful policy violating waste of server space. Off2riorob (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont see how we agree if we disagree. i do believe lists are valuable, as are categories. there are clear abuses of lists and categories, but again, my eyes see more than i can grasp. Some lists are heavily watched, and kept in line, just like some articles are. I do agree that accurate ancestry documentation is hard, and too much classification by "race" is, in essence, racist (not anti-x racist, but racist based on outmoded pseudoscientific classifications), but we have an out: we arent demographers or geneticists, we write an encyclopedia. if person x is well known as a "black puerto rican", and in part identifies as such, then for our purposes he is, even if he is, say, 25% east african, 25% native american, 25% italian, 25% melanesian, moved to puerto rico from ireland as a boy, was born in south africa, was raised jewish and is a neopagan to boot. they get to be on a lot of lists and in a lot of categories, even though its all somewhat silly.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 09:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per above keeps.  Some of the delete "rationale" is on its face inconsistent w/wp policy on lists, and simply personal non-consensus POV.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as for similar categories. If an editor insists on  removing content for an article or  blanking it, does this show we should delete it? I could get rid of anything that way. If inadequately sourced, it should be sourced, not blanked or deleted.To be removed, it would be necessary to show it intrinsically was unsourceable     DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur as well w/DGG's comment as to Off2riorob's blanking of the list.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This is the second AFD and the first was two weeks long and I repeatedly commented as to my intention to remove the uncited content and I have done. I don't even support deletion, I don't care, someone nominated it again and then voted keep...hilarious, I will watch this list and attempt to help it be a valuable resource. Keep yes great, go ahead, add the citations. My blanking of this list is absolutely within policy and the best thing that has ever happened to this rubbish list. Off2riorob (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. If our article on Afro-Latinos is correct, there are over 100 million of them. We ought to be able to find more than two who are notable. Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nicely done.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: I only believe ethnic groups should be highlighted if they can be clearly identified (as in a significant number of them would be indentifiable within one or two questions, or even on sight), minor (much less than 100 million), and/or are also an interest group socio-economically/politically (like Albanians in France).  I feel this way because Wikipedia is full of notable people, period, and a person's race generally has no bearing on their inclusion.  So for a list to be made, the ethnic group must somehow be notable in its own right.  Groups like Greek-Americans, or Chinese-Nigerians, or British-Indians come to mind.  Latino is such a broad word, a word that some "Latinos" reject and could easily include the majority of the Western-hemisphere.  Considering that probably as many as MOST "latinos" have some african ancestry at this point, what makes someone afro-latino?  Does this include Garifunas in Belize, Honduras and Guatemala? Does this include the decedents of black carribeans that were shipped to panama to build the panama canal, and who speak Spanish, but who may or may not still consider themselves carribean?  Does this include Hatians who were raised in the dominican republic or puerto rico?  The distinction of Afro-Latino is so dubious, I think this list will turn into fancruft, original research, free-for-all. It's the equivalent of a "list of notable people of mixed ancestry".--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, redundant to a category, which would be self-maintaining; additionally, this list generates BLP issues due to lack of citations. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.