Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vietnamese 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The result was Nomination Withdrawn.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 16:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Vietnamese 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 18:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep How many times are we going to keep nominating this article for deletion? This is a notable ethnic group, and that a list of German Americans was deleted does not mean this list should be deleted.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: An article on the ethnicity would be encyclopedic and welcome, however, apparently the new consensus is that these list of people by nationality/ethnicity are not appropriate for WP. Leuko 18:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I see such consensus anywhere. In fact, the List of German American AfD actually had more Keep votes than Delete votes, if I counted correctly.  The closing admin's argument for deletion was loose association, and I highly disagree with the application of that argument on some of the lists (not all) that have been individually nominated for deletion.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, WP:AFD is not a vote (so counting is irrelevant), and the deletion decision was upheld at WP:DRV, so there must have been consensus. There were actually more arguments to delete other than WP:NOT, but since you bring that up, I don't see how any other list of persons of a certain nationality, ethnicity or religion are any more tightly associated, and less of a directory. Leuko 19:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And the deletion of List of British Chinese people was overturned, relisted for AfD, and kept. Like I said, the fact that a list of German Americans was deleted does not mean all similar lists should be deleted.  Furthermore, I did not say that AfDs are decided on vote count, I am saying I see no consensus established regarding these lists, and that I disagree with the application of the closing admin's argument of loose association on some of these lists.  WP:NOT is not applicable here as you can see from the examples given in the policy that it pertains to articles or lists providing contact information and otherwise consumer-related information or how-to information.  This is not such a list.  And the whole point of listing these lists individually as opposed to en masse in the first place is because some of these lists should be kept and others deleted.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, that was closed as no-consensus, which is not the same as keep. And the closing admin cited precedent of other lists of the same type being kept.  By that logic, all these lists, including List of British Chinese people should be deleted per the new consensus and precedent. Leuko 19:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This should be a category, not an article. MrMurph101 19:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - lists like this are prone to vanity listings. DHN 19:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - If the Vietnamese American person is not notable and the article about them is there for vanity purposes alone, they should not have a WP article at all, and if they do it should be deleted. Thus this argument does not make sense, and the need for such a list (which I and many others use as an invaluable resouce--a single page listing notable Vietnamese Americans broken down by occupation) is not negated. Badagnani 02:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Once more, an opended list without an explicit definition, against Wikipedia requirements. Is one grandfather enought to make you Vietnamese-American? If you have both Vietnamese and Chinese ancestry, are you defined as Vietnamese-American for this list? What if you grow up speaking only English and eating Big Macs? With no explicit definition, the list turns into original research/POV. All such lists should be deleted for the same reason. MarkBul 20:23, 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 20:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I think those articles should be just categories also. MrMurph101 20:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions.   —Noroton 22:24, 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)
 * Comment - The category simply gives one a very long list of names, often across several pages. The article gives a single article with names broken down by occupation (and footnoted/sourced), making for much easier searching and locating of the information our users are looking for. I know this because I am also one of those users. Improve, don't delete. Badagnani 02:16, 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 02:43, 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 03:49, 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 04:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - It'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 04:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you read WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF? If not, might be a good time to.  Categories can accomplish the same things that the lists accomplish now.  There can be sub-categories by profession, etc.  And most of these lists do not have any footnotes and references, so I fail to see how lists are so much better?  And unless there are more than 200 people in a category, they all fit on one page.  (Not that this matters). Leuko 04:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Bad faith on the part of earlier delete nominators is also shown by the fact that several of the lists were heavily footnoted, yet the content was deleted entirely (content gone forever) rather than merged. This is a severe assault on our project, and your delete nominations, on a massive scale, are damaging. I can't phrase that in any "nicer" manner. Badagnani 04:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, I am unaware of, nor responsible for, the action of earlier nominators. I just saw a bunch of unreferenced lists. The deletion nominations are a direct result of DRV-endorsed consensus that these lists violate WP:NOT. I don't see how that is an "assault on our project," as I thought we worked by consensus. Leuko 04:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strange. A number of those discussions had consensus *against* deletion yet the closer chose to delete anyway, dismissing out of hand the preponderance of well-reasoned "keep" voters. It's all there in the record. One such closer actually has a statement on his user page that he would like to try to delete 800,000 WP articles. Any "consensus" you see for deleting all these articles is a figment of your imagination, or the imagination of the "delete page regulars" who have shown their corruption in recent weeks, deleting pages clearly against consensus. Badagnani 04:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I actually didn't see much of a consensus to delete either, but if the closer of the AfD or the DRV don't determine consensus, who does? Leuko 04:41, 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.