Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Irish American actors (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   keep. The consensus is that both lists should be kept --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 02:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

List of X American actors


I'm re-nominating this list because it seems attitudes have changed since its first nomination, and because the first nomination had only a few participants. The reason remains the same. This is an irrelevant intersection with a very vague, very open criteria for inclusion and ends up being little more than a never-ending WP:BLP, WP:NOR and WP:V-violation magnet. (see Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American entertainers and Articles for deletion/List of Jewish actors for precedent.) Bull dog123  03:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * AfD History - (Hopefully a fair summary) - This began as a nomination of List of Irish American actors. Following discussion below, List of Italian American actors was added to the AfD at a later stage and the name of the AfD changed. - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep List of Irish American Actors - Even a cursory search (link) reveals that "Irish American actor" is a term that people use and have discussion about, so the intersection is non-trivial. Issues about the scope of the list and who does or does not belong on it are for the list's talk page; AfD is not for shortcutting inconvenient arguments or for clean-up. Also, I'm unaware of any significant change in policy or community opinion since the last AfD resulted in an overwhelming Keep. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean a cursory search that makes this very list show up #1 on google? Bull dog123  03:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That is the search I mean, yes, although I'm referring to the links further down that list. If you're honestly debating that  "Irish American actor" is a term commonly used in casual, professional and critical literature then I'll find you specific sources but I wouldn't have thought there was any serious debate about that. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A few links down, we find www.irishcentral.com with headline articles like "Is Sarah Palin an anti-catholic bigot?" I'm not seeing the academic connection yet. As a matter of fact, doing a Google Books search brings up pretty much nothing on the subject. Bull dog123  04:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you looking at the same search you just linked to? I see the phrase being used in around 99,000 results, including such books as "Making the Irish American: history and heritage of the Irish in the United States", "Historical dictionary of Irish cinema", "Looking for Jimmy: A search for Irish America", "Beyond the Notion of Race", "The Irish-American Family Album", "Ireland and the Americas: Culture, Politics and History", "Screening Irish-America" and "A Companion To 20th Century American Drama".  I could go on but three sources is generally a good guideline for notability and I'm already at eight.  There's obviously a significant academic discussion of the contribution of Irish Americans to American culture through the medium of acting. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Everything you listed is great material for Irish Americans and Irish cinema. But no, I don't see the part where those links provide material for an obvious "academic discussion of the contribution of Irish Americans to American culture through the medium of acting." You're also making it seem like this list is a prose article when it's just an indiscriminate trivia list. Take a quick scan of the entries. For example, check the Julia Styles link: . All it says is: "Her mother (half English, half Italian) makes ceramic pots, her dad (Irish) sells them." What does that sidebar remark have to do with an academic discussion of Irish American contribution to cinema through acting? Half the list is like that. Bull dog123  05:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're confusing content and topic again. If there are things on the list that are trivial or don't belong, they can be deleted directly per the usual practice of edit-revert-discuss.  This discussion is whether the list itself should be deleted, not some portion of its content.  And I'll once again direct you to the following sources and their content summaries (these are back-of-book summaries, not quotes from inside, as the interior coverage is extensive, and they're just two of a great many similar books):
 * Screening Irish-America, "Screening Irish-America is a major work in Irish-American screen studies. [...] [T]he book contains contributions by leading scholars in the field.  Topics include John Ford, the Irish-American gangster, Irish-American stars and the representation of the Scots-Irish and religion."
 * Bowery to Broadway: The American Irish in Classic Hollywood Cinema, "James Cagney's 1931 portrayal of the Irish American gangster, Tommy Powers, set the standard for the Hollywood gangster and helped to launch a golden age of Irish American cinema. In the years that followed several of the era's greatest stars, such as Spencer Tracy, Bing Crosby, Pat O'Brien, and Ginger Rogers, assumed Irish American roles as boxers, entertainers, priests, and working girls, delighting audiences and at the same time providing a fresh perspective of the Irish American experience."
 * I can't see any rational reason for disputing that there's significant coverage of this sufficient to declare it a non-trivial intersection. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm. When I look at Category:Lists of actors, I don't see any other nationalities.  There's a religion (List of Muslim actors, but interestingly no List of Christian actors), but no List of American actors, no List of Irish actors, no List of British Pakistani actors — nothing else like this at all).  While I'm mindful of WP:OTHERSTUFF, the whole point of lists like this is that they're navigational—they help end-users find content—but it's hard to make the case that this is navigational if it's the only one of its kind. I should probably also draw your attention to this discussion.  Category decisions are relevant to lists because of WP:CLN, and in this case, people by ethnicity discussions have been exhaustively thrashed out at CfD. Category:Irish-American actors has been moved to Category:Irish Americans which is now in Category:American people of Irish descent.  In other words, with all due respect for DustFormsWords (a user with whom I often agree), I think that in this case it's hard to say that there's any navigational purpose to this list because of the complete lack of other parallel lists, so I rather agree with the nominator.  Delete .— S Marshall  T/C 05:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (Later) Contrary to what I just said, I've just discovered that there's a List of Italian American actors after all.  Maybe we should include that in the discussion?— S Marshall  T/C 05:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * List of Italian American actors does in fact exist, as does List of Muslim actors and List of Native American actors. Also, hilariously, List of African-American pornographic actors.  I don't think you can draw a conclusion either way from a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS analysis of this one.  There is no reason why any intersection of ethnicity/nationality/religion and profession shouldn't exist, where there's significant discussion in reliable sources to support it. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * List of Muslim actors is a joke-article which should be speedied... I'll nominate it separately. Bull dog123  07:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's co-nominate List of Italian American actors, List of Native American actors and definitely List of African-American pornographic actors (which is much more urgent to delete!) The substantive concerns strike me as similar in all cases.  Any objections?— S Marshall  T/C 05:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I wanted to give Italian American actors it's own AfD, but if you insist... I have no problem including it. Bull dog123  07:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I object. They raise different issues, being one that's reasonably similar to this (Italian American), one that's on the basis entirely of race rather than race/nationality pairing (Native American), and one that deals with a profession that is either entirely different or a subset of "actor", depending on how you see it (African-American pornographic actors).  Plus I have a longstanding concern that mass AfDs encourage a poorer standard of scrutiny.  Argue this one, and then if you get a consensus use it to make the next one go faster. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ALSO - sorry for double posts - but I think there's value in letting this one run as a test case, as in AfDs that include the words "Jewish", or "African-American" you inevitably get someone thinking someone else is being racist. I don't think passions about Irish Americans run quite that high so it might be a good chance to get the underlying logic locked down without things getting out of hand. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding the African American porn actor list... I'm going to agree with you and leave that for a separate AfD. I have, however, added Italian Americans, because, like you said, passions don't run quite as high for these groups. What about the List of Native American actors?? Separate or here? Bull dog123  08:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer separate, on the grounds that it's a different argument (race/profession intersection, rather than ethnicity/nationality/profession intersection). - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep list of Italian-American actors for the same reasons as the Irish-American list, being that the intersection is the subject of significant discussion in reliable sources, mostly in the context of the establishment of the unique cultural identity of "Italian-American". - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've struck my "delete" above, because I'm vacillating. Now I'm starting to think DustFormsWords might be right here after all.— S Marshall  T/C 13:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Consider that "List of African American actors" would obviously be of interest, as would one of Native American actors, because that would be an important part of the history of these minority groups and would be important information on how they have been viewed by the majority. There is no reason not to treat the Irish and Italian Americans the same. They also have important histories as distinct minority groups in America.  On the other hand a list of, for instance, Ukrainian American actors would indeed be a intersection of unrelated qualifications. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? Because Vera Farmiga and Jack Palance could very well be considered "Ukrainian American actors" just as much as Al Pacino could be considered an Italian American... you see. I think you're opening up a can of worms. Bull dog123  00:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I picked the Ukraine as a country which probably does not have too many immigrants to America, maybe I should have picked some other place. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, but you're not proving why a list of any individual with Irish or Italian ancestry relates to scholarly or academic sources. For that matter, where are these sources that define "Italian American actor" and "Irish American actor" as a relevant intersection: ? The closest one I could find is: . Is this all we rely on? A few sections of a book that's otherwise devoted to filmmaking and not "acting?" Bull dog123  21:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources are those I provided above. There are a great deal more but I'm disinclined to do the work until you make some explanation of what's wrong with the ones I've already mentioned.  In theory, there would be no reason we could not have a list of Ukranian-American actors, provided that it could be demonstrated there had been significant discussion of the topic. The relationship between "academic study" and "the value of a list" is discussed at WP:LISTPURP, being that once a topic is shown as being the subject of significant discussion (and therefore notable), a list of articles related to that topic provides value to users interested in that topic for the purposes of information and navigation. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.Griswaldo (talk) 05:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as a list that groups together articles by a shared and defining common characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't create lists on wikipedia merely because of a "shared and defining common characteristic." As one Wikipedia's most prominent editors, I'm sure you know that. Bull dog123  21:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, we do actually create lists for exactly that reason. Or rather, others create such lists on that basis; you never have.  While we're getting personal here, as you have, you haven't created much of anything here, so I'm not sure what your basis is for understanding these issues or for thinking you can school others on them, particularly someone like Alansohn who has created more articles than you have article space edits.  Aggressively trying to delete these lists seems to be most of what you do here, and such an agenda is not a good basis for understanding article creation or community consensus on these issues.  postdlf (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * First, I'd say participating in AfDs and CfDs helps a user learn more about policy than making random articles. Secondly, I admit I spend most of my edits on wikipedia deleting indiscriminate categories and lists. If users like me didn't exist, this encyclopedia would be a cesspool of trivia. I wish there was a log to show all the material I saved you from. Bull dog123  00:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In any case Bulldog doesn't need to defend himself; an ad hominem attack has no value here, as Bulldog hasn't appealed to his own experience or authority in making his arguments. Either his arguments are persuasive or they aren't, and his editing history has nothing to say one way or the other to that. - DustFormsWords (talk)
 * Agree in part and disagree in part w/Dust. An editor's editing history can certainly be of moment in certain instances, without being an ad hominem attack but rather a remark as to the weight of their editing.  An example is our template allowing editors to point out if another editor is an SPA -- that is focused entirely on editing history.  Also, I would think that if an editor has a long history of bringing AfDs that don't reflect wp:before searches, or consensus, that is also reasonable fodder for discussion.  That said, as Dust points out one can simply look at Bull's comments at this AfD (and the article, and the comments of others) to form one's opinion of them, and whether they are persuasive or not; nothing more is required, IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep both lists as encyclopedic indexes of article subjects, on top of the intersections being notable in their own right. If instead the inclusion criteria of who qualifies as Irish American or Italian American is the nominator's problem, then those lists should be discussed as a whole; the entire structure of such lists should be listed for deletion or (my preference) discussed in an RFC.  Such issues are in no way particular to these two lists, and it makes zero sense to delete these lists as long as any lists of Irish Americans or Italian Americans exist, because subdividing them by occupation is a completely sensible way to organize them, especially where that ethnic group's history in a particular occupation has been noted.  postdlf (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep (both). The intersection is indeed a notable one, with entire books written about it (as in the 2005 book Hollywood Italians), as nom would have known had he performed a wp:before search.  This is now reflected summarily in the intros of each list; google searches of course yield far more in the regard.  Issues he may have with inclusion criteria are appropriate for him to raise at the respective talk pages, but not reason for deletion.  Nor is being a magnet for controversy; if that were reason for deletion, we would delete the wikipedia articles on abortion, Hamas, and everyone named George Bush.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to Dust's source here, you must have not looked through it very carefully. Once again, it's a book devoted exclusively to portrayal of Irish Americans in American cinema. It does briefly mention that some Irish American actors play those roles (i.e., James Cagney), and that's fine... but please explain what you plan on doing for the rest of the individuals on this list - the ones who don't portray Irish Americans. Prune them? Also, you're repeating that George Bush/Hamas analogy even though it didn't make any sense the first time. Nobody is saying "delete everything that's controversial." George Bush and Hamas are heated articles but they're not magnets for dubiously sourced entries and BLP violations because they are not indiscriminate lists of people.  Bull dog123  07:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Discussion of why Irish-American actors aren't used to play Irish-Americans is as relevant to their notability as discussion of when they are. There is no reason that notability of Irish-American screen actors doesn't establish notability of Irish-American actors generally, given that screen acting is the highest paid level of acting, in exactly the same way that a "List of American writers" would not suffer for only including American published writers.  Although I'd be surprised if notability for stage actors couldn't also be found.  A further source is here:
 * America on film: representing race, class gender and sexuality at the movies Beginning at page 58, a chapter entitled "Bleaching the Green: The Irish in American Cinema" discusses at length Irish-American characters and the Irish-American actors who do or don't play them, providing a history of the work opportunities for Irish-American actors over time.
 * Actually, that source is a fascinating read, particularly about the way Irish-American actors positioned themselves in opposition to African-American actors, and dealt with the sterotypical and racist roles they were being given playing defined Irish "types". - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, I don't disagree with you that it's an interesting read. I love history, especially the history of cinema. That's why I would actually support all these lists to be removed and instead replaced by Portrayals of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity in Cinema - or something along those lines. Hell, I'll even start the article if there's support for it... but you're constantly skirting the issue here. I want to know what Demi Lovato, Abigail Breslin, Rosie O'Donnell, Christian Slater all have to do with the fact that in the 1940s QUOTE "Gene Kelly had often played overtly Irish American characters, but by the 1950s, his characters were considered simply American" END QUOTE. And if you agree that the answer is "nothing," then you (and all other !keep voters) have two options: re-vamp the list to include only people like Gene Kelly (with a note for why he's being listed as an Irish American actor) OR delete the list (and all lists like it) and make a prose article on the subject (as suggested). There is no third option that doesn't make this an irrelevant intersection - which you all stress it isn't. The re-vamping option is acceptable, but it's going to cause a lot of problems with users who simply "won't understand" why they can't add their favorite actor despite him being of Irish/Italian/whatever descent. Bull dog123  10:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * They have more than two options, Bulldog123.— S Marshall T/C 20:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not unless they want to come across as disingenuous to their earlier points. Then, yes, the third option is just "keep as is" - but of course that throws out the window all the "backed by reliable sources proving intersection blah blah blah" stuff. Can't have your cake and eat it, so to speak. Bull dog123  21:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again - and I don't know how many times I have to say this - content has nothing to do with AfD. The list could be filled with the names of Smurfs, and it would be still be kept because the TOPIC is allowable, and AfD is not for cleanup.  If the list were populated with Smurfs, the appropriate process is to close the AfD as Keep, and then immediately purge the list of uncontroversially irrelevant entries, add at least one relevant entry, and then discuss the remainder on the talk page. AfD only cares about the potential of the page, not its current state. From WP:BEFORE: "[P]lease consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, an associated WikiProject, or on the article's talk page, and/or adding a cleanup tag, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD."  Emphasis in original.- DustFormsWords (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm happy you bring that up. So you admit that what you're requesting is a complete re-vamping of the article, right? Adding entries based on their relationship to "Irish American cinema" and not merely "because they have Irish heritage" - which would prune 90% of the list as it is. By adding information about why they are listed as Irish Americans, this list becomes more of a prose article, based on their relationship to Irish/Italian Americans in cinema. Now please explain why it's easier to keep this list instead of just deleting it and starting over (with a more specific title). If you don't agree with any of what I said, you just went back on your entire point. By the way, a List of Irish American actors containing smurfs would be viable for AfD (because clearly the list is not clear enough as to its inclusion criteria) -- I don't know what the heck you're talking about. Bull dog123  01:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not requesting any change to the list. I'm perfectly happy to leave it as it is.  I'm saying that if you have a problem with the content, it has nothing to do with the AfD.  You can take that up on the list's talk page, after the AfD closes, or begin building consensus for it now so it's ready to implement after we close as Keep.  In your hypothetical, a List of Irish American actors containing smurfs would NOT have a problem with its inclusion criteria, it would have a problem with its content, being content that did not meet the inclusion criteria.  Wikipedia has absolutely no difficulty in defining "Irish", "American", "Irish-American" or "actor", either separately or in combination, and we do it the same way we define everything else - by reference to reliable sources.  Where sources don't agree we present all notable viewpoints. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly happy to leave it as it is Great, so you admit that it is an indiscriminate list that simply includes anyone with Irish heritage and who is an actor -- and has no connection, as far as we can see, to the sources you keep touting above (about how Gene Kelly was pigeonholed into Irish American roles, etc.. etc...). Perfect. When are you going to change your !vote to delete then? Bull dog123  04:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm reasonably happy that everyone except you understands my argument. It's disappointing that you can't get your head around it, and will probably keep mis-nominating lists as a result (which isn't to say you don't often make good nominations, in with the bad) but at the point where you're putting words in my mouth it stops being a mature discussion and there doesn't seem a lot of return to be had on continuing it.  If anyone other than Bulldog remains confused as to any of my points, please feel free to question them, but I'm otherwise leaving the argument here. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's easy to get crickets when you ask an empty room. It's also easy to get crickets from people who simply can't follow this conversation anymore. No, I admit I don't understand your argument because it seems to change a lot. You just said "I'm not requesting any changes to the list." Did you not? Although earlier your entire point was "There is a connection between Italian/Irish Americans and acting." You pointed to sources showing how people like Gene Kelly were pigeonholed into Irish American roles. I agree that seems reasonably notable, and it's possible that - in that case - Gene Kelly could be considered an "Irish American actor" (though it is kind of WP:WEIGHTy) it just doesn't apply to everyone. Yet... here you say you don't advocate removing anyone. Can you understand how that doesn't make sense? How is Demi Lovato and Gene Kelly both equally "Irish American actors?" Bull dog123  23:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-notable intersection, violates BLP and list policies. These lists should not exist in an encyclopedia. If you want to write about the influence of an ethnicity/religion on something, write a sourced prose article. I have asked this before, what is the purpose of having a list of names (there's nothing else here) classified by ethnicity, and/or religion?--Therexbanner (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * These arguments seem entirely fallacious to me. The purpose is navigational, intended to help readers find related topics.  Categories, lists and navigational templates are encyclopaedic for the same reason that paper encyclopaedias have indices and tables of contents.  DustFormsWords and Postdlf have shown that the intersection is notable by linking to some of the reliable sources that have noted it.  There is no BLP violation because it's not "negative information" to call someone Italian American or Irish American.  And finally, there is no list policy against it. Having said all that, I'm still not entirely convinced that it's a good idea to pigeonhole people by ethnicity on Wikipedia.  If we are going to, then I certainly don't understand why it's so important to keep list of Irish American actors when we don't have a list of Irish actors.  We're inadvertently treating "Irish American" as more important or relevant than "Irish".  In short, I'm concerned about the systemic bias issue.— S Marshall  T/C 17:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely nothing in common with the alphabetical listing/index used by an encyclopedia and these "navigational" lists.
 * Show me a real encyclopedia that labels people by ethnicity or religion, when it has nothing to do with their notability.
 * In regards to the "negative information" point, I strongly disagree. I wouldn't want people/articles labelling my ethnicity, or religion based on "sources". It often can be offensive to label people as part of an ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation that they do not want to be associated with.
 * Some information like citizenship is more objective, but when dealing with ethnicity/religion/orientation having a source is not enough. (Which is why guidelines state that these things should be left out, unless they are important to the subjects activities.)
 * In relation to ethnicity, there is absolutely no way to determine that unless the person self-identifies as X. Claiming someone is ethnically X, would require tracing the genealogical tree of the person for generations, and then calculating the relative percentage of inter-mixing.--Therexbanner (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Your arguments aren't well tailored to the results you want. Excluding those for whom their ethnicity was not important to "the subject's activities" does not justify the outright deletion of these lists, only the removal of certain entries.  Further, in many instances, the notable people will be verifiably the children of immigrants if not immigrants themselves, so once again if the claimed ethnicity is too attenuated, such as a single great-great-great ancestor (a concern for which I am sympathetic) then that again is a good argument for removing individual entries rather than removing all entries that are considerably less trivial.  On the other hand, if you don't think ethnicity should be documented in any case, well, that's interesting, but far from any consensus view of the topic, and such a blanket prohibition on certain information will only hinder Wikipedia's coverage for benefits that I am unable to discern.  Even if we presume that ethnicity is a negative fact in some instances, the BLP problem is cured by proper sourcing and explanation, not by removal where it is verifiable (not to mention for those who personally identify as X-Americans and so obviously do not take "offense"). @S Marshall: There is Category:Irish actors.  As to why there isn't a corresponding list, there's no good reason and so we should presume that eventually one will be made.  There are plenty of other lists of actors by nationality indexed at List of actors.  postdlf (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you support identifying those people who's ethnicity/religion/orientation is not important to their activities, and removing them from these lists?
 * With proper sources, I think that would solve the policy/guideline issues. --Therexbanner (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you believe that the lists can be fixed with editing, even if that editing doesn't happen we need to take you off the "delete" column. I think a better, more clear threshold issue is to make sure first that the lists only include those for whom the ethnicity is significant, which would require explaining in the list what the basis is for declaring that to be part of their ethnic heritage (not simply providing a citation). Most entries don't do that.  And I think it would be easier to establish some general rules for that issue than a rule to figure out whose ethnicity was relevant to their career.  Certainly when it comes to something like acting, which involves casting and the depictions of different "types" of people, I believe it's a reasonable presumption that those with a strong ethnic identity had it affect their career in some way.  And those effects could be diverse: an Italian-American could say "I always got typecast as a mobster" or "I was surprised I didn't get typecast as a mobster" and either way the intersection would be relevant.  I would eventually like to see all entries annotated as to those effects, and maybe then once the lists are developed in that way those entries that both have little to go on for a claim of ethnic heritage, and/or nothing to say about how that ethnicity affected their career, could be dropped off.  But that's a process that calls for the scalpel of editing, not the wrecking ball of deletion.  postdlf (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with the above well-put points of our senior colleague Postdlf. In particular his especially well-put last sentence.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think a better, more clear threshold issue is to make sure first that the lists only include those for whom the ethnicity is significant, which would require explaining in the list what the basis is for declaring that to be part of their ethnic heritage (not simply providing a citation). I'm glad you mentioned that. You do know that's not this list and that has never been this list. What you're asking for is something completely different and the people regularly editing this list are not going to be willing to make such a drastic change merely because a few individuals said so in the AfD. In other words, your view appears to be a delete view, yet you're demanding a keep. Bull dog123  00:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No. First, I don't think the list is delete worthy in its current state, because it's a valid list topic and its content would not need a complete rewrite for it to be at all valid.  Second, I don't think (and consensus tends to agree with me on this) that room for improvement in a list or prose article is grounds for deletion.  If you do, then that rather throws into question just what your deletion !votes mean, if "delete" in your interpretation can include "needs a lot of work."  Your comment implies that if the list were further developed in the ways that I have suggested, that you would at least find it significantly less objectionable.  I don't know that these improvements will ever happen, but I have no reason to believe that they won't.  I assume good faith on the part of the current and future editors of this list.  postdlf (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if you don't think the list is delete-worthy in its current state, then we're still not on the same wavelength. Further developed to the point of completely changing, yes.... and further developed to the point where it's more an article than a list. I also don't think the title works, as it would be too misleading. But the point is that this list and lists like it (the X-American lists) have been contested for years and years and years. There has been no progress with them. You can assume good faith on the part of the current and future editors, but it's blind faith, and not because they are all "agenda-driven," but because there's no way to go about this without resorting to some kind of original research. You say, I don't know that these improvements will ever happen, and your prediction is correct. They won't because they can't without significant original research. In a few years, this AfD and ones like it will pop back up and we'll have a new batch of users making the same arguments you all are now. An endless cycle that could have been stopped today. Bull dog123  03:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Proof of concept (with all due respect to the talented Ms. Breslin). Your suggestions for improvement are appreciated.  postdlf (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Both per sources discussed in DustFormsWords post of 05:04 on 6 December way up at the top of this debate. I don't know of a significant American ethnic identity whose contributions to the arts, sciences, or humanities haven't been discussed in multiple works, and these two certainly have been. Comparisons to a "real encyclopedia" are clearly against WP:NOTPAPER.  Jim Miller  See me 01:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources in that post are all about Irish Americans (and we have that article as you can see). Bull dog123  01:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Here, here, here for a very superficial search. Let's also remember the underlying thought behind all of our notability guidelines - the vast majority of reliable sources are not available online, in English, and/or for free. If I can find this many in less than 10 minutes, we need to extrapolate how many we could find in an exhaustive search with access to them all.  Jim Miller  See me 02:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding those three sources: This isn't an article about portrayals of Irish Americans in early American cinema/theatre. This isn't an article about Irish American filmmakers and their films (i.e., The Brothers McMullen via Edward Burns) and finally, this isn't a list of participants in Irish theatre - not even a reference to Irish Americans in that one link, btw. All your sources are for different lists and different articles. This list - is and always has been - since the very moment of its inception - a list of any American individual with Irish heritage who is an actor. That is the list up for AfD.  Bull dog123  04:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The first one specifically discusses the Irish heritage of the actors being responsible for the "three-dimensional nature of those characters"(p.49), and the second discusses Ford's specific use of "Irish-born and Irish speaking Maureen O'Hara", unless she somehow doesn't qualify as an Irish American actor. The subjects of the articles at this AfD are Irish American actors and Italian American actors. The fact that each of them uses a list-based format and each uses the title style of "List of..." is irrelevant. Both of those are clearly notable topics. You are arguing that there are not reliable sources discussing Irish or Italian American actors as a specific topic, and that those topics are therefore not notable. This has been refuted by many others here.  Jim Miller  See me 05:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to create a list that contains Maureen O'Hara based on that one source's commentary on her... fine. However, you're not addressing the fact that this list does not contain just Maureen O'Hara. As I've been repeating over and over again, I want to know what Demi Lovato, Abigail Breslin, Rosie O'Donnell, Christian Slater, etc... have to do with those handful of sentences you pulled from books that supposedly talk about "an Irish American way of acting" (when, in fact, devote no more than a few sentences to such a topic). Secondly, no, the other sources have not "refuted" the skepticism surrounding the intersection - and they certainly have not "refuted" the main point of this nomination - which everyone keeps evading. That this is a list of any and all American actors with Irish heritage regardless of whether that Irish-Americanhood had anything to do with their careers. Hence, the intersection is 100% irrelevant for the vast majority of them. You seem to have found something potentially substantiating Maureen O'Hara. Where are your sources for the other hundred+ entries? Now, I can do the exact same thing you're doing for List of left handed actors. Find a couple of tangentially related sources:   . Then announce notability because of this one sentence here: "It seems there are a disproportionate number of left-handers in the pantheon of successful actors. A possible reason is that lefties naturally develop the facility for adaptation and self-transformation, integral to their engagement in a right-handed worldIn some cases, it has helped the kind of body awareness necessary for mimicry". By your very thin standards, we have just proved it to be a notable intersection, and, following the same logic, undergirded a List of left-handed actors... regardless of whether or not their left-handedness had any effect on their acting. Cue the retort: "This is not an AfD about left-handed actors." I know. It's not.  Bull dog123  06:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Your arguments are based on standards for categories, not lists (and indeed, if we were talking about a category, I would agree with you...look at this; I have agreed with you in the past). Unlike categories, adding an article to the list does not burden that article with a tag on the article (intersecting every occupation with every ethnicity would create a flood of mostly useless category tags on many bio articles), and the subdivision does not interfere with other lists or articles in the way that a subcategory of American astronauts by ethnicity would hinder category navigation by splitting up Category:American astronauts.  And unlike categories, which can't explain varying degrees of inclusion, you can annotate and source why the individual is included and in what way the list's criteria is important, so you can see that, oh, Maureen O'Hara actually emigrated from Ireland, but Abigail Breslin is...unclear, maybe should be removed if it turns out she maybe just said in an interview that she thinks she may have had an Irish great-great-great-grandfather.  But barring the completely trivial or the inapplicable, lists can tolerate some flexibility of inclusion criteria because of that ability to explain that categories completely lack, so readers and editors can see from a well developed list the relationship of the entry to the list's organizing concept.  Incidentally, deleting lists such as these will only make it harder to get a consensus to delete the categories, which is completely counterproductive in my view. This is a list of articles, not a list of all Irish Americans who ever lived and who acted.  And lists of articles index those articles by shared encyclopedic characteristics.  It doesn't matter that the encyclopedic characteristic is not equally significant for all entries, so long as its inclusion to them is verifiable.  You don't need to be able to say a paragraph on each one to justify the list as a whole.  The fact is that these are real and notable ethnicities, and we have articles on notable people of those ethnicities, and this is a real and notable occupation.  It's enough for me then to justify the intersection with acting to say we're just sublisting the list of people by ethnicity by occupation.  A complete list of all articles of Irish Americans would probably be pretty long.  But let's assume we start with that, and make it a sortable table with a column for occupation...and then the list gets too big, and it's split into numerous sublists, one structure of which would be organized...by the information in that original column for occupation.  The purpose is navigation, the purpose is indexing articles, the purpose is aiding in article creation as those who are interested in, say, the experience of Italian Americans in cinema, a topic on which an article could certainly be written, would be greatly aided by a list of notable Italian American actors.  Those are all long-recognized, valid purposes of lists.  But the further fact that the distinct history and role of certain ethnicities in American acting has been the widespread subject of multiple reliable sources should remove any doubt that these lists' criteria are encyclopedic.  Multiple reliable sources do intersect these ethnicities by this occupation.  Which means that the intersection is not only encyclopedic but notable, and so even for those few who don't recognize the pure indexing, navigational function of lists, that justifies using it as the basis for a list of articles we have that match that criteria.  Even if we cannot write a paragraph on its significance for each entry.  And yes, I do think these lists, and others like them, could be developed a great deal more.  Which goes back to my comment above, that room for improvement is never grounds for deletion.  postdlf (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Plus, surely -- along the same lines -- Bull has seen the refs in the intros to each article.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 10 December 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.