Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese 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 Closer appears to have forgotten the afd. Spartaz Humbug! 15:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

List of Portuguese Americans
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Per Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. While Wikipedia may not be a compendium of lists, these listings are extraordinarily helpful with research, as those searching for individuals of a particular ethnic background can easily find specific individuals and possibly contrast with others in the article. These listings for deletion are disruptive, in my opinion. They smack of nationalism and seem to presume that Americans have no (or shouldn't have) interest in the extreme diversity of the ethnic fabric of America. ExRat 02:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And a category can't do this? To me, voting "Strong Keep" on some List of _x_ Americans, while deleting others smacks of nationalism. Leuko 03:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: These lists often (or should) be referenced with birth and death dates, occupations, etc. Categories don't do that. ExRat 04:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Per ExRat. However, there's no need to get snarky guys... discuss the article, no the person. Witty Lama 14:47, 7 November 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.