Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Czech 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   keep. The Bushranger One ping only 05:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

List of Czech Americans

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Article does not meet WP:NOTDIRECTORY, specifically item 1 - the entries in this list are not constrained to those who "are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic." Tgeairn (talk) 01:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 02:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 02:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 02:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets the guidance of WP:LISTPEOPLE and WP:LISTN. WP:NOTDIRECTORY is a poorly drafted policy as it is mostly a ragbag of pet peeves and uses language such as loosely associated which is itself too loose to be helpful.  Warden (talk) 09:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * While I agree that WP:NOTDIRECTORY could likely be further clarified, it is policy. WP:LISTPEOPLE and WP:LISTN are guidelines and would normally not trump policy. What I find relevant here in the policy is that this (and similar) lists do not assert that the list members are notable as a result of being associated with the list topic, or that their inclusion adds to the notability of the list topic.
 * As an example, List of Nobel laureates includes only members that are clearly notable as Nobel Laureates; their inclusion in the list is a given due to the notability of the topic itself, and in many cases the entry's notability is strongly linked to their membership in the topic.
 * In the case of this article, the topic (Czech Americans) includes literally millions of people and, given the broad membership criteria of having Czech ancestry, will ultimately include millions more. There may be specific cases where someone is notable as a Czech American but the criteria here does not limit the list in that way (and is not easily altered in such a way). --Tgeairn (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:PRESERVE is policy too and this indicates that we should not so casually discard such well-sourced information. There are related articles such as Czechs, Czech American and Czech American and the content would be better merged there than deleted.  In any case, I do not accept that WP:NOTDIRECTORY means that we should delete lists of this sort.  The topic is extensively documented in sources such as this which say things like "The early colonial Czech community included several prominent members, the most famous of whom, Augustine Herman, has become a figure of near-legendary stature within America's Czech community.".  We have an article Augustine Herman and so it seems quite acceptable to have an index of such notable Czech Americans.  Refinement of this list is then a matter of ordinary editing not deletion, per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Czech American article is a perfect location for people who are notable as Czech American. The article (even without this list), covers those individuals well. There may be data to preserve from here, but this list is not constrained in that way. For example, Augustine Herman is notable as a Czech American and part of that notability is because he was Czech and part of the founding of America. This list also contains George W. Bush as an entry. Under the constraints of this list, GWB is a valid (and sourced) entry. However, GWB is not notable as a Czech American. In fact, his BIO article does not mention Czech even once. The fact that GWB has Czech ancestry is in no way relevant to his notability or to the notability of Czech Americans as a subject. --Tgeairn (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree that GWB's Czech ancestry is not notable. The sources in this case are Miloslav Rechcigl, who self-publishes his genealogical researches, and the Czech embassy, which has a vested interest in promoting such material.  Debatable cases, such as this, may be removed by ordinary editing, per our editing policy.  We do not delete entire articles and lists just because there are parts which need improvement.  AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To address the PRESERVE issue raised, removal of this list is unlikely to result in the removal of any appropriate content. The ancestry of anyone on the list who is notably of Czech descent is already present in their BIO articles, and has the advantage of being presented in context at those articles. --Tgeairn (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * keep. The requirement for inclusion in this list is that the person is Czech American and notable.  It has never been, and does now need to be changed to, that they are notable due to their ancestry as a Czech.  That would be a silly requirement: one is not a notible businessperson or scientist or whatever because of one's national background.  People are notable because they have a WP article (by WP definition, notable) or have citations showing they are notable and would qualify for a WP article were one to be written.  Hmains (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The list article makes clear who should be included. I agree that the definition of 'notable' may be a little bit lax, allowing redlinks, but this is a clean-up problem or an argument for the Talk page, not a reason for deletion. Sionk (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above comments and cited policies and guidelines, as well as per WP:CLN. Re: the nominator's WP:NOTDIR argument, a list of notable Czech Americans does arguably "significantly contribute to the list topic." The nom's apparent interpretation of NOTDIR (that only lists of X are permitted when X is why those things are "famous", with I assume "famous" = merits an article) does not reflect consensus or even common sense. Obviously we have many completely uncontroversial lists (i.e., indexes) of notable people, places, and things that are not about why those things are famous or merit articles, to the extent one can even objectively ascertain why someone or something is "famous". Many are featured lists that contradict the nom's supposed policy principle, such as List of Dartmouth College alumni (not limited to people famous because they are alumni of Dartmouth, if there are any such people). Otherwise, there would also go all lists of people by fundamental biographical data (no one is famous because they died in 2012 or because they are from London), or indeed even basic indexes of notable things by their most defining characteristics (e.g., no newspaper is notable because it is published in Ohio). So I would hope it would be clear that the nom's deletion rationale is not a workable or desirable principle to enforce, in addition to being unsupported by consensus (and therefore not policy). And if NOTDIR can be read as contrary to that, then NOTDIR itself is in error and needs to be rewritten. postdlf (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is also a completely commonplace and mundane editing task to limit such lists only to entries that have or merit articles, so the complaint that there are "literally millions" of Czech Americans is completely irrelevant because we will never have articles for all of them. postdlf (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I only mention the "literally millions" as a potential reason for why NOTDIR #1 is written the way it is. NOTDIR #1 is directly quoted in the nomination, and NOTDIR #1 at least implies that list membership should be constrained to those who are notable as members of the list, rather than those who are notable who happen to also meet membership in a group that has nothing to do with their notability. The example of GWB above is representative of this. GWB is notable, and has an article. GWB is not notable AS a Czech American, and his status as a Czech American has nothing to do with his notability. As Warden noted above, GWB may not belong in this list; but the criteria for inclusion do not make that distinction. --Tgeairn (talk) 03:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And no one is notable AS someone who died in 2012, or AS someone who is an alumni of Dartmouth. We routinely make lists that are not about why anyone is notable. That's a fact. You are nevertheless insisting that policy forbids this, notwithstanding the fact that most lists contradict this supposed policy, including featured lists. As does WP:LISTPURP, WP:LISTPEOPLE, WP:CLN... Nor does it make sense to make such subjective exclusions based on why you think someone is notable or not, to determine the entries in lists based on shared facts. Editors may decide that George W. Bush's Czech ancestry, though verifiable, is too remote to merit his inclusion in this list; I have no problem with that, that's a reasonable editing decision. On the other hand, Ray Kroc is identified by reliable sources as the son of Czech immigrants, yet your standard would apparently exclude him from being listed here because that's not why he has an article? In any event, you do not have a deletion rationale, just a content disagreement. postdlf (talk) 05:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, OtherStuffExists, but those articles are not under discussion here. You have brought up multiple great examples of where where a Guideline (in your examples, MOS) may contradict Policy (NOTDIR). Maybe it is appropriate that we address those contradictions in the MOS or NOTDIR. Until the contradictions are resolved though, WP:POLCON says: "If policy and/or guideline pages directly conflict, one or more pages need to be revised to resolve the conflict so that all of the conflicting pages accurately reflect the community's actual practices and best advice. As a temporary measure during that resolution process, if a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, editors may assume that the policy takes precedence."
 * I am (emphatically) not looking for subjective exclusions or inclusions, but rather arguing that the list criteria do not constrain the list to those who are notable as Czech Americans. I am also not trying to discuss specific entries here, only to use them as an example (such as GWB above, or your example of Kroc).
 * As written, the policy would exclude this list. NOTDIR allows us to avoid the GWB example, and clarifies the Ray Kroc example (his BIO article says he is American, this list says Czech American; his father was born before the Czech republic was formed and contemporary sources say he is Bohemian). By limiting lists to those subjects notable for their inclusion in that list's subject area, the policy keeps the list useful and bounded.
 * Regardless of the outcome of this AfD, I believe I have presented a policy based case that this article does not meet policy and should be deleted. While I do not disagee with most of the statements made by those recommending Keep, I have not seen in the responses any policy based reasons for keep. --Tgeairn (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * But you're not reading that policy correctly or sensibly. I would have hoped it would be obvious that, if everything else on WP contradicted your interpretation (every list-related guideline, the content of numerous featured lists, the comments of every other AFD participant, etc.), that you might hesitate in thinking your interpretation was correct. Instead you've facilely dismissed meaningful comparisons as an OTHERSTUFF argument and somehow thought that the tail could wag the dog. But let's look anyway at the actual language of NOTDIR that you have selectively cited: "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic." You have instead read that as "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists only if..." And you have unsurprisingly been able to show no support that NOTDIR should be read in that way, either because that produces the best results or because there is a clear consensus supporting that reading. postdlf (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's a list categorising notable people, by a criterion (nationality/ethnic origin) that's often used to group people. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, incomplete and only partially referenced, but definitely salvageable and verifiable list. I would agree that it should be cut down, e.g. that GWB should not be in this list and that it should be restricted to people who are notable for being Czech American or self-identify as Czech American (where this is verifiable). - filelake shoe  &#xF0F6;   08:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't need self-identification if the heritage is immediate and verifiable; if their parents were Czech immigrants, then it shouldn't matter whether they ever were recorded as saying 'I am a Czech American." But such content issues are outside the scope of AFD, in any event. postdlf (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2012 (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.