Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Taiwanese 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The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 16:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Taiwanese 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 18:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Categorize This should be a category not an article. MrMurph101 19:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, The rationale for deletion given in Articles for deletion/List of German Americans was WP:NOT. So these lists below should also be deleted if we want to be consistent:
 * List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: What about "x" is not a valid argument, as each case must be taken on its own merits. If you feel those articles violate WP:NOT#DIR, then feel free to list them on AfD. --Darkwind (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions.   —Noroton 22:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Nominator has pasted the same argument on all nominations, setting a "precedent" for the rest of us to mindlessly do so. It's sourced, and the only reason that it's being nominated is that some asshole thinks there's a "precedent" based on two articles.  Hey, on the articles that have been kept, is that a precedent too?  Mandsford 23:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong, speedy keep - Important aid for researchers. We only include notable individuals in these lists and they are well sourced. As with previous ethnic group nominations, this nomination, apparently done along with dozens if not hundreds of others all in a single day, is disruptive, WP:POINT, and does not enhance our encyclopedia. Improve, don't delete. Badagnani 00:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * delete Use categories instead of lists.Dark Tea &#169;  02:06, 13 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 02:52, 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 03:55, 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 04:26, 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 04:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. I agree with ExRat and Badagnani. In addition, this mass nomination is too POINTY. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:40, 13 September 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.