Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of English Americans (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 delete. --Core desat 04:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

List of English Americans
AfDs for this article:Articles for deletion/List of Chinese AmericansArticles for deletion/List of English Americans (2nd nomination)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is at AFD because it was previously considered here and has been re-nominated for deletion via WP:PROD; therefore, this is a procedural nomination. The prior discussion in March 2007 was as part of a mass AFD for multiple lists of "(Ancestral Nationality) Americans", the overall outcome of which was 'no consensus' with instructions to take individual articles to AFD again should that be warranted. The PROD-nomination was done in August 2007 with the stated reasoning "like list of Portuguese Americans", an article which is currently being considered here on AFD as part of a new mass-deletion nomination. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 04:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep no reason given for nomination. These are very appropiate lists.-- Sef rin gle Talk 06:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, there was a reason given. Bulldog123 07:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions.   — Sef rin gle Talk 06:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this is what categories are for. Scope for article is hopeless huge otherwise. --Oscarthecat 06:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep most readers have no idea what categories are nor do they know how to navigate and use them. Lists make them easier for new readers. Also the reason for deletion at List of Portuguese Americans is weak, should information not be included because there is so much? This article badly needs sources though.  T Rex  | talk  11:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Oscarthecat is right, this is what categories are for.  English American says there are 25 million of us in this country who identify as having English ancestry, and likely at least twice as many.  Can we say "unmaintainable and indiscriminate"?   ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * delete way too broad to be of use, consider a category if one doesn't already exist. Artw 18:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Arkyan. Listings by ethnicity are almost always needless and batch together a bunch of people who have a fairly minimal connection to one another. Mad Jack 19:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - useful navigation aide as provided for in WP:LIST - navigation is one of the primary purposes of lists. And for anyone interested in monitoring and maintaining articles on English Americans using Wikipedia's Related changes command, this list would be invaluable.  Wikipedia has two overlapping navigation systems - lists and categories.  Both possess strengths that the other system lacks, and both are well-established.  Personal preference of one of those systems over the other is not an acceptable basis for deletion of a page.   Th e Tr ans hu man ist    00:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment There are so many Americans who can claim descent from someone in England, I can see where this list could go on forever: Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, etc.... One could say the same about German-Americans, Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans, Scotch-Irish Americans, etc. I think that a list of first-generation English-Americans (i.e., a parent or grandparent from England) would be of interest.  I'd separate out the descendants from the Mayflower.  Mandsford 00:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete meaningless: how much English must one be to get listed here? what RSes are there to prove it: and someone's own statement about what they think their ancestry is may not be reliable they may have a Madeleine Albright moment in the future and be something other than they thought. Moreover, why should WP be categorizing people on this basis? Carlossuarez46 00:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per trivial intersection.  I highly doubt their racial background had much to do with their notability Corpx 03:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete List of ETHNICITY-American destroy the purpose behind making a nationality list. Lists are not meant to house ALL famous people from a nation, which is exactly what these subdivisions are pushing. A list of Americans should only have short lists of the most notable AMERICAN writers. For example Mark Twain as a great example of an American writer. If ethnic articles such as English Americans wish to have brief narrative mentions or artists or scientists who somehow are known for their Englishness, then fine. But a list like this shouldn't fly. Bulldog123 07:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Lists of only "most notable" people are generally regarded as a violation of NPOV. Kappa 07:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This is what categories are for.Dark Tea &#169;  12:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Corpx, Arkyan, Dark Teal, et al. CAT. Bearian 03:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete these pages need a strict definition to work. My mother's parents were from Sweden. We have a Swedish Christmas meal every year. I've been to Sweden. Does that make me Swedish-American? The Swedish-American list page includes one-parent second generation individuals. If the category is undefined, I say Delete. On the other hand, these lists can be of interest, as in "I didn't know he/she was Pomeranian-American!" Make a requirement "first generation, or both parents, second generation" and it's a keeper. MarkinBoston 20:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that is an appropriate definition, also Category:English Americans has a stricter one: This category includes articles on people who emigrated from England to the United States, or are self-identified as English Americans." Currently the list appears to include people who don't meet this kind of strict definition, but I'm not going to go through it and remove them if the list is going to be deleted anyway. Kappa 06:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, list of Portuguese Americans and the others survived AFD (as non consensus) so we should be looking for reasons why this list is more deletable than the others. In fact this is a particularly notable ethnic origin, and the only problem here is unclear inclusion criteria which is easily fixable. This list is organized better than the category and has references which a category can't. Also annotation is necessary to do this job properly; this list has inadequate annotations but a category can never have any. Kappa 06:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Articles like this one are very common and useful. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 10:07 25 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to redirect you to the essay on bad keep arguments, but could you perhaps say WHY this is so much more useful? Or perhaps, what kind of academic uses exist to knowing that Ted Danson has English ancestry? Seems like WP:TRIVIA to me. Bulldog123 01:42, 26 August 2007 (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.