Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ukrainian 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The result was Nomination Withdrawn.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 16:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Concerning all of the "List of XXX Americans" nominations

 * Speedily keep all, close discussions. It is extremely non-productive to nominate this many similar articles all at once.  Even a concerned editor cannot realistically review and comment on several dozen articles at once.  Either the practice of making this kind of list should be allowed or it should be banned.  The list of German Americans that was deleted should not stand for a precedent, and if we decide to keep it that article should be restored too.  This kind of large policy matter is best decided at the policy level, not by piecemeal deletions.  That guarantees inconsistent results and a very messy encyclopedia.Wikidemo 22:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * AGREED If it hasn't already, this should be brought up at WP:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents. Noroton 23:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The nominator was told in the AFD for Portuguese Americans to relist them individually. Someone legitimately posted a bunch of related AfDs is not a reason to go to ANI and it's not a reason to speedy keep. Smashville 23:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I would delete them all under the same reasoning, so I don't need to see each one. I agree, however, that it should be done in a single decision. Either they all have the same flaw or they don't. It certainly is a pain to have to post in each AfD. MarkBul 23:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I think an administrator should look at the havoc that this one person has caused. I don't think we can really take time to consider other articles when we've had one person nominate at least 49 articles about ethnic groups, based on some bizarre idea that Wikipedia has created some change in its rules based on a "precedent".  The guy might have a point on "Lists of American Jews" because it's not a list of American Jews, it's a list of LISTS.  But 49 articles in one day?

I pity the closing administrator who has to handle this one. Mandsford 23:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've left a comment at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents see "Mass deletion nominations for List of [Ethnic Group X] Americans". Noroton 00:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong, speedy keep all and indefinite block of nominator for outrageous abuse of our system - 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. It is humanly impossible to respond with all due care and deliberation to each of these in a single five-day period, probably what the nominator was hoping. Badagnani 01:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep all Nothing is wrong with these lists.-- Sef rin gle Talk 01:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * At the moment there's a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents see "Mass deletion nominations for List of [Ethnic Group X] Americans". Please participate there, not here. Noroton 01:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't believe the entire discussion should go to ANI. What should be discussed there is if the mass afd nominator did anything improper. There should still be a discussion here because there are arguments for both sides of the issue and maybe something could be worked out to provide a less controversial way to handle this and what should ultimately become of this. MrMurph101 03:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, this location is the top of the AfD for List of Ukrainian Americans. I just don't think this location works well for this purpose. My understanding of AN/I is that issues brought there aren't necessarily disputes in which some kind of punishment or protection is sought but matters that have some urgency and that only admins can ultimately deal with. An active discussion has already started there and it's generally best to keep it in one spot. The discussion here is irregular and some admin is going to have to figure out whether to delete it or somehow save it, whereas AN/I will be archived.Noroton 05:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I made this comment at ANI, but I'll put it here as well for the benefit of editors that are not following the discussion at ANI. To the best of my knowledge, there isn't any policy against nominating so many similar articles for deletion individually, all at the same time.  But surely it would have made for less of a mess if a few of them were nominated individually, then we wait for their closure, and we nominate a few more.  The problem I really have with these nominations is that they seemed to be indiscriminant.  The whole point to nominating them individually, as suggested in the mass deletion AfDs that the articles already went through, was that some of them should be kept while others should be deleted - they need to be evaluated at a case-by-case basis.  But I can't see any apparent effort or attempt by the nominating editor to determine if some of these lists really ought to be kept instead.  Granted maybe he feels they all should be deleted, but some of these lists have only recently survived AfDs, and at the very least, I think those lists should not have been nominated at all.  It's borderline disruptive.  How many times are editors who dislike these lists going to keep nominating them for deletion?  Those lists that have survived recent AfDs should be speedily kept in my opinion.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:23, 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.


 * 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 16:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Ukrainian Americans

 * – (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 18:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete This should be a category not an article. MrMurph101 19:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This nomination is a fragrent waste of time. It doesn't properly fit the parameters for WP for deletion --Bandurist 20:21, 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 20:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Smashville 21:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * KeepGalassi 21:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Keep this, as well as all other list of citizens of USA by nationality. List is rich and informative. We aren't guilty that there're so many peoples on this world. At last, why do we have encyclopedias? Articles about so many things. Some things someone finds unimportant, but somebody other earns for living on those and makes millions of dollars out of that. In these lists, only the persons that are worth of mentioning should be there, not just "any man picked up from the street". At last, these info is useful. Do you know how many successful international business meetings and business cooperations (I mean all of them, from small shop and taxi cab events to statemen's meetings) began/became more appreciated, just because someone knew whome "belonged" certain "celebrity"? Kubura 22:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions.   —Noroton 22:23, 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 23:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This and All the Others for the exact reason that German Americans was deleted: WP:NOT. This is a potentially infinite list. Smashville 23:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:BIO: "Several articles contain lists of people - for instance, an article on a college usually includes a list of alumni. Such lists are never intended to contain everyone (e.g. not all people who ever graduated from the school). Instead, the list should be limited to notable people". cab 00:02, 13 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 02:37, 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 03:47, 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 04:34, 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 04:44, 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 03:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Useless nomination! Elmao 05:38, 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.