Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Native American women


 * 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. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The result was keep. This close was overturned at deletion review here.   lifebaka ++ 00:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

List of Native American women

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A recent afd indicated a similar kind of page to be categorized and then deleted.

The difference I see between this page and that page is that a Native American is a porous definition that involves ethnicity, while an African American has more to do if you look African or not. Another problem with List of African American women is that many ethnicities cross the US borders, and such an intersection of ethnicity and polity seems spurious.Curb Chain (talk) 10:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:CLS tells us that we don't delete lists to give preference to categories. Warden (talk) 11:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How do you explain this afd then?Curb Chain (talk) 08:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTDIR Wikipedia is not a list

Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed.[3] Please see Wikipedia:Alternative outlets for alternatives. Wikipedia articles are not:

This needs to be deleted per this policy @- Kosh ► Talk to the Vorlons ► Markab -@ 16:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. 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.
 * Delete I don't see this as a particularly notable intersection, Native American Women Writers, Artists etc. would be fine but simply a list of Native women in general doesn't seem enough to justify a list. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  — —Tom Morris (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Provided this list remains perhaps re-listing the article with this title "List of "Notable" Native American Women" or some similar title might be considered. I believe women should be spelled with a capital "W" not in lower case as in the title given. It is possible some might take offense at the lower case spelling. Supporting links within the Wiki to verify notability might be encouraged as well. --User:Warrior777 (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the purpose of categories. Such a list is unnecessary when they can be tagged into categories.  This solves the problem of making a separate page where we have to verify the notability, when tagging pages into categories is more efficient because the page is already verified to be notable, so all is needed is category tagging.Curb Chain (talk) 08:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Why exactly is this list being nominated for deletion for? The Wiki is not a list but it contains numerous lists by necessity as navigational aids  for its users. This list being and example. Neither is this article a directory (WP:NOTDIRECTORY) Both categories and lists are available but they have very specific functionalists,  the list being "user friendly" while the category is primarily a linking tool within and for the structure of the database. Relegating this list to categories will be sending it to the "basement", so to speak. Im going to quote from here   "Developers of these redundant systems should not compete against each other in a destructive manner, such as by nominating the complementary work of their colleagues to be deleted just because they overlap. Doing so may disrupt browsing by users who prefer the list system. Additionally, arguing that a Category or List is duplicative of the other in a deletion debate is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided. Also, lists may be enhanced with features not available to categories, but building a rudimentary list of links is a necessary first step in the construction of an enhanced list—deleting link lists wastes these building blocks, and unnecessarily pressures list builders into providing a larger initial commitment of effort whenever they wish to create a new list, which may be felt as a disincentive. When deciding whether to create or avoid a list, the existence of a category on the same topic is irrelevant."   Source Wikipedia  The Wiki must include notable items (WP:note), in this situation people. This is the control that limits the amount of content contained within lists. Those that are not noteworthy should be removed from any list, including this one.  --User:Warrior777 (talk) 16:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We simply can not have a list for every category. Turning this list into a category does not put it into the basement because categories have their own pages.  This is not necessary:  by putting the categorytag on to the notable individual's page, it automatically registers that page on to the categorypage.  This becomes a list itself all that is adequate.Curb Chain (talk) 08:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Perfectly good list, with notable being assumed, as always in such lists. No reason not to add it to the tile, of course. All that is necessary is that an item have a Wikipedia article or be very obviously qualified for one, and that the Native American status be clearly shown and referenced in the article. Ideally the reference for that should be copied over, but in most of the instances here for historical figures it is perfectly obvious. A list and a category serve complementary functions, for browsing and for suggestive articles on a topic A category can not give context; a list can. Lists that give no context at all should be improved, but this  list doers give the context,   for area of notability and usually date and   tribe.    DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really, every page on wikipedia is notable. Why should they have a list AND a category?  A category is all that is needed.  No, not even for historical figures is that perfectly obvious:  consider people who are not familiar with american history.  The date and tribe is trivial and unthematic.Curb Chain (talk) 08:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Maintaining both the list and the category involves double the work. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Delete per NOTDIR, as a "List ... of loosely associated topics". No indication why the intersection of "native American" and "woman" is so interesting (i.e., notable) as to warrant a list.  Sandstein   10:28, 23 July 2011 (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.