Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German 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. Many of the "keep" arguments are cogent and well-researched arguments for keeping our German American article (those from DGG, Mikka, Alexander Lau). Unfortunately, they are not addressing this list. Nobody is denying the ethnic group "German-American" is notable; that is not the issue at hand here; whether we ought to have a list is. Sourcing is also not a guarantor of encyclopaedic value, and so Mandsford's argument is unconvincing. Arguments to "keep as this should be discussed elsewhere" (Hmains) are also unconvincing, and the accusations of bad faith from himself and Badangani are not helpful; AFD is the designated location to discussion the deletion of articles. Previous AFDs are not helpful, as articles of this nature have been both kept and deleted, so precedent does not help us. Arguments of "it is useful" are, by now, almost universally discounted. With many of the "keep" arguments not particularly convincing, we now address the delete arguments. The principle arguments are that the list is a loose association (Corpx, Iridescent, Mad Jack are fairly convincing), the criteria for inclusion are not defined (not convincing), and that if they were complete, would be too big to be manageable (convincing). Suggestions that the list is too subjective (Carlossuarez46 says "how German must one be to be on the list?", and MarkinBoston makes a good point) are also reasonable. Arguments that the list could be replaced by a category are not convincing (Kappa dispatches these well). However, on the whole, I am far more swayed by the arguments to delete, which are better rooted in policy (Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely associated items), particularly given the failing of most of the "keep"s to address the list in question. Neil  ム  10:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

List of German Americans

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Relisting per suggestions at previous mass AfD Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans. A common argument might be "it's sourced, leave it alone" but one has to pay attention to how this is sourced. The criteria for inclusion is in an endless battle for definition. Even if we only allowed people sourced as German Americans, there would still be many reliable sources conflicting on this manner, and adding to dubious categorizations that may potentially include people completely unrelated by anything but an ancestor from Germany. Bulldog123 07:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as with all such lists that have shown up here, and for the same reasons. As the nominator has said, it is impossible to arrive at a universally-accepted definition for inclusion, thus the list criterion is undefinable... thus the list itself violates WP:NOT. Where ethnic identity is important to a bio, it belongs in the bio article. EyeSereneTALK 08:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So you would delete Category:German Americans for the same reason? Kappa 20:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Golfcam 09:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions.   -- the wub  "?!"  10:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I like that this page - unlike others - is at least partially sourced. However... looking at this one: "His father, Lou Gephardt, was the grandson of German immigrants" This is a problem. One of eight great-grandparents was German, so he is German-American? I would say Keep to these lists only if you keep it to first generation immigrants or children of two first generation parents. Otherwise, people could end up on different lists - I'd be both Swedish- and Irish-American. MarkinBoston 16:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right, you would end up on both lists and that would just fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.114.137.34 (talk) 19:50, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
 * Honestly, if you had a wikipedia article, would you consider your Swedishness as relevant to your life as Ingrid Bergman's Swedishness was? That's exactly what this list is purporting. Wikipedia doesn't allow WP:TRIVIA so your Swedishness couldn't just be "an interesting fact" as is this case for boatloads of these lists. Bulldog123 06:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep It can be said that German-Americans are the plurality in America, ahead, even, of "English Americans"; and a lot of us have a trace of German ancestry. In the Midwest and the Plains states, they come close to being the majority.  Hence, an article that could potentially describe hundreds of millions of people has to be pegged to a higher standard.  And it meets the Krauteria for a well-written article quite well.  It has 279 footnotes on a website where most authors don't know what a "footnote" is, and those cites have information that relates directly to the person's German roots.  Good German engineering.  Mandsford 17:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If German-Americans are a plurality in America, that's a fairly good reason not to have the list, considering how many people it would have on it. Mad Jack 21:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Precisely. So many American notables are likely of some German descent that we might as well just put everyone on that list who is sourced as having a single German ancestor. Why not just put the most German German-Americans who gained fame from America on German American and leave it at that. Plus we have categories for all others. Bulldog123 00:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. The list is to document the most famous of Americans with German blood. Most of the individuals listed have mothers or fathers that are directly linked to Germany and the footnotes, for the most part, document this. If there are single individuals that you have an issue with, then target them, not the entire list. Alexander Lau 08:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Absolute list of loosely associated topics.  What does having 1/8th German in you have to do with your notability? Corpx 19:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Absolutely ridiculous list and sets a stinkingly bad precedent for 22578 laundry-list articles (assuming 212 countries in the world) —  iride scent   (talk to me!)  21:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Corpx. Far too loosely associated for a list. Mad Jack 21:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Categories should be applied here (per profession possibly).--JForget 00:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * keep This is part of a series of 60+ such lists just for US.  Any such radical step as deleting these should be discussed in the Wiki Ethnic Groups project. Individual lists should not be targeted. Hmains 01:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment And again, 279 footnotes... I know I've never had that many in an article, how about you guys? Mandsford 01:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * For goodness sake, we talked about the "but it's sourced!!" argument to death. Bulldog123 02:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh golly gosh forgive me I guess I hate to see a well-written article deleted because the subject offends someone's sense of what belongs in an encylcopedia.  As for me, I can say that I have no problem with the concept of lists of people according to their heritage and I'm voting keep because this is the quality that Wikipedia articles should have.  If I make a distinction between this list and say, a "List of Elbonian-Americans", it's based on the quality of the article.  If you and others are voting delete on all such "List of Blank-Americans" articles, then I praise you for staying true to your beliefs.  On the other hand, if any of you have voted "Keep" on some of this type of articles and "Delete" on others, perhaps you should ask yourself why. As for myself, I can answer that question--- I judge by the quality of the writing.  That, ultimately, is what good editing should be.  Mandsford 16:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't get too giddy about these citations. For example, check out the citation for Alma Gluck and tell me what the basis for listing her as a German-American is, exactly... Mad Jack 18:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a bad example and yes she probably has no right in being listed there, but the majority have solid sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.114.137.34 (talk) 19:18, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep We just discussed this for Portuguese-Americans and it didn't pass deletion. There are certain ethnic groups that have made terrific contributions to American society and the world in general. Look at the German-American 'Entrepreneur' section alone. Most of those listed in that area are first or second generation German-Americans. Documenting them is great. If there are individuals that you feel might not deserve being mentioned, take it to the 'Talk' area.  Take a look at what the Germany Embassy in Washington DC lists: http://www.germany.info/relaunch/info/publications/infocus/german-americans/g-a_in_hollywood.html, http://www.germany.info/relaunch/info/publications/infocus/german-americans/g-a_influential.html, etc. and the US Diplomatic Misson to Germany: http://usa.usembassy.de/germanamericans.htm and http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/ga-tricentennialreport.htm and such sites as German Hollywood: http://www.germanhollywood.com/. A nice list: http://www.germanhollywood.com/abc_index1.html Alexander Lau 16:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We also just discussed it on Articles for deletion/List of English Americans (2nd nomination), and that was deleted, so... Mad Jack 06:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you saying we should delete this page as well? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_American. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries-by-County.svg and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:USMapCommonAncestry2000.PNG looks like a lot of solid, statistical analysis to prove this deserves merit Alexander Lau 07:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Neither of those links supports having a large list of names. Mad Jack 18:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure it does. It shows that a certain group of immigrant people have made a substantial impact on a country and it's been proven through census. The fact remains that a large number of Americans with German blood have made strong contributions and there should be a place to document those individuals. If there is an issue with an individual, in particular, then argue for that person's deletion. The vast majority of the individuals in this list have sources next to their names and are legit. Alexander Lau 18:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Many male people have also greatly contributed to the United States. Should we have a List of American males? Mad Jack 09:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The German embassy pages are quite interesting: the number one influential "German American" is Albert Einstein, who was stripped of his German citizenship, and under the Nuremberg laws not considered a German at all, showing how shifting ethnic identity can be and how triviallly useless this list is. Carlossuarez46 16:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Under this (ridiculous and illogical) reasoning, Gioachino Rossini was not really an opera composer, as he wrote no operas between 1830 (at age 38) and his death in 1868 (at age 76). Badagnani 01:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per Alexander Lau et al. Bearian 22:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd still like to know why you found List of English Americans worthy of deletion but not List of German Americans. Bulldog123 06:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm with you Bulldog123, I don't think it's fair to list one group and restrict another. By leaps and bounds, the English have contributed much to the United States in comparison to other groups listed. Seems odd to me. Alexander Lau 06:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - encyclopedic, well sourced (279 footnotes) 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. Badagnani 03:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Ethnic identity is a major part of countries such as the U.S. Rmhermen 06:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant to the reasons at hand. I can't find a single person who put "Delete - ethnic identity is not an important part of US culture" Bulldog123 06:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. per nom.Rex 15:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete suffers from the same problems all these ethnic lists suffer from: how "German" must one be to be on the list? What WP:RSes tell us that the individual is at least that much German, and is being that much German any different from being just a little less German? Also, German is both an ethnicity and a nation, so German-Americans could include ethnic members who have never been to German, spoken German and have non-German names, and also people of non-German backgrounds who are from Germany and later became Americans. So ultimately not defining, POV, and largely OR. And why is WP in the business of categorizing people by race and ethnicity anyway? Carlossuarez46 16:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Without wishing to appear to be pointing out the obvious, "why is WP in the business of categorizing people by race and ethnicity anyway"?" represents an extreme point of view that is, thankfully, generally regarded as such (a ridiculous, fringe position). Unfortunately, editors with such bias can be very, very destructive. Badagnani 17:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete All of these huge lists of people or places that reasonably have no end shouldn't be articles. They serve no purpose and if complete would contain thousands of names, which isn't reasonable.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 16:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It`s useful for editors, ( historically ) interesting and it doesn`t harm anybody! --Sushi Leone 15:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment While I don't generally hold with quoting WP:ATA, you may want to have a look at WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:INTERESTING and WP:NOHARM at this point —  iride scent   (talk to me!)  17:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The comment by Sushi Leone was clearly made in good faith and these essays you cite are clearly written by individuals with extreme ideologies such as yourself. Don't try to negate his/her comment by continually citing these idiotic essays, thanks. Badagnani 17:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment While WP:ATA is an essay, not policy, you might want to have a look at its history before launching wild personal attacks on its authors. (Just what is this "extreme ideology", anyway? I find it hard to imagine any ideology shared by HisSpaceResearch, Melsaran, Radiant! and W.marsh, for instance.) I have yet to see a satisfactory answer as to how this (or any of these other racial-classification lists) satisfies the Manual of style guidelines for lists - namely: "If this person/thing/etc., wasn't an X, would it reduce their fame or significance?; Would I expect to see this person or thing on a list of X?; Is this person or thing a canonical example of some facet of X?" —  iride scent   (talk to me!)  17:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's very clear: I and many others use these lists in our research. You are apparently attempting to delete/blank this data from Wikipedia, in complete disregard of the editors who have spoken up in this regard. One editor even states an extreme position that we should not describe people based on their ethnic origin. You may *wish* that such a thing as a German American didn't exist, and that everyone was simply an "American," but such a thing does exist, and we are documenting it. We can discuss hypothetical German Americans, or we can discuss real German Americans and their contributions to the United States (with voluminous sources and footnotes, which have already been provided). Sorry, I don't think it's possible to be more clear about the highly damaging nature such deletion/blanking has on our project. Badagnani 17:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not answering the question, though - why does this need a separate list, especially given that List of English-Americans has been deleted? Few, if any, of these people are famous for being German-American. I can't understand why this - and every similar list - wouldn't work just as well as a category; if the German ancestry is genuinely important to their life, it belongs in their biography and not on a separate list page as a content fork. Articles like this will either always be woefully incomplete, or an indiscriminate list of information. There is also the issue that (while not in itself a reason for deletion) the criteria for inclusion at present are far too vague - I've never seen anything to indicate that Tom Cruise, for example, considers himself German in any way, while if we're going to go back to the "one of his ancestors was born in Germany but moved to America in 1709" level (as with Walter Chrysler) the list could probably include at least 25% of the population; applying the Chrysler argument would result in Prince William being considered Hungarian via Claudine Rhédey von Kis-Rhéde —  iride scent   (talk to me!)  18:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * >"Few, if any, of these people are famous for being German-American." Well, I'm not sure where you are coming from? There are plenty of individuals that are documented in the German-American list that either learned their crafts in Germany or were taught by first generation Germans in the United States. Albert Einstein, Wernher von Braun, Emile Berliner, Henry J. Heinz, Henry Muhlenberg (Pioneer of Lutheranism), The Beer Barons (http://www.germany.info/relaunch/info/publications/infocus/german-americans/g-a_beer_barons.html) (Busch, Coors, Anheuser, Miller, etc.), etc., etc. Take a look at the American Civil War Veterans and their education in German Armies. *Again, if there is an inndividual that you don't deem worthy, then nominate them for deletion, but keep the list. Alexander Lau 23:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You’ve got me! No problem - I can be convinced by good arguments! So I withdraw two of my points but I still think that those lists are basically a good research tool for writer/editors. --Sushi Leone 19:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Further to the above, I - and I presume most, if not all, of the delete !voters - aren't saying ignore the fact altogether, but to ensure the appropriate articles are in Category:German Americans - that way, anyone who did want to use it as a research tool would still have all the names together. In all honesty, the list as it stands is so indiscriminate that I can't see who'd use it. Regardless of whether the list's kept or it goes to a category, it desperately needs to be trimmed to only those people who identify themselves or are identified as German, otherwise List of German Americans, List of Irish Americans, List of African Americans and List of Mexican Americans would between them likely catch close to 100% of the population, with many people falling into all four —  iride scent   (talk to me!)  19:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep 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 being proposed for deletion here so far is justified and keepable. DGG (talk) 00:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. A notable notion. Classification not POV. `'Míkka 01:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Many reliable sources have been presented for why classification of people in America by ethnic or national origin is notable and significant. While there may be some disagreement over whether this should list every notable American with verifiable German heritage, or only those Americans who have at least one full-German parent, or only people who are identified as German-Americans in reliable sources, or only people who verifiably self-identify as German-Americans, or only those Americans whose German heritage itself is a notable aspect of their identity, etc., etc., this does not constitute a reason to delete. I fully believe that discussion on the article's talk page can come to a consensus for reasonably objective and verifiable inclusion criteria which balances comprehensiveness with maintainability. Improve, don't destroy. DHowell 06:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The list has existed for about two years and there is always a continual battle for inclusion so I don't believe there could ever be a consensus for exactly who qualifies. Further, if the by-occupation categories would be overcategorization, then I don't see how the by-occupation divisions in this list aren't trivial. With the category Category:German Americans there usually is a written justification in the article for why this is a relevant category. Doing that in this list seems burdernsome and unnecessary. Bulldog123 10:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, the nominator apparently thinks categorizing people as German-Americans is acceptable... "Plus we have categories for all others". If there can be criteria for a category, there can be criteria for a list. The list has the advantage of being able to explain, with references, exactly how that person satisfies the criteria. Plus it has the usual advantages of being formattable and annotatable, which this list exploits very well. Also I don't want to see a list of German Americans in German American I'd rather have it separate. I don't particularly mind this list being restricted to first or second generation immigrants. Kappa 20:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment ...and who ever said that Germans stopped coming to the United States, to live, in the first place? There are plenty of well-documented sources proving that immigration persists until this day, but here is a more modern link: http://www.deutsche-in-amerika.net Alexander Lau 13:39, 28 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.