Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of caucasian people

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of a page entitled List of caucasian people.

The result of the debate was to delete the page.

Article under discussion: List of caucasian people. A similar discussion took place a month ago. See Talk:List of black people/white people/Delete


 * This HAS to go. I almost deleted it on sight.  RickK 03:47, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Delete. -- BCorr ¤ &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 03:53, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * I believe this came about out of the discussion at List of biracial people above. Delete, of course. -- VV 03:57, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * What a silly, silly, proposal. Keep, of course. -- Audia
 * This user has only made 2 article edits, both to List of caucasian people. Fuzheado 07:12, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * I created the page in response to the above discussion on list of multiracial people (Oct 20). I didn't realize there had already been some amount of debate on such a page which was subsequently deleted, otherwise I would not have made the page.  However, as a multiracial individual, both of which are ethnic minorities, I am (1) offended by the concept of having lists of "minority" peoples, and (2) feel that espouses the POV of the "majority" group.  I understand that it is not the place of Wikipedia to make everyone happy, but it is proper for us to maintain a NPOV.  Is there a solution which at the least addresses this concern?  -- zandperl 04:06, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are new here? In the past it's turned out badly when people create articles (lists in particular) to "prove a point". Maximus Rex 04:26, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Refer to comments above. This does not espouse the majority group view so much as recognize the simple objective fact that the majority is a majority. -- VV 04:36, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Caucasians are a world minority, and even in the US, it's no longer a majority, just a plurality. -- Jake 15:06, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should clarify. I did not say whites were a majority, just that if a group is a majority, then they should not have a list (this is because the word "majority" was used by Zandperl).  My notes under List of biracial people explain in more depth my criterion, which is "small relative to the relevant population", which does not apply to whites. -- VV 22:25, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Oh, apparently that discussion has been moved to Talk:List of multiracial people. -- VV 22:30, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Keep. Consistency is key. It's no better or worse than any of the other lists. If there's a list of frenchmen or a list of africans then there's no reason why there shouldn't be a list of caucasians, as long as all lists are factually accurate and correct. If it relevant to know the race of famous people in some articles (list of biracial people, etc.) then it is equally relevant to give list of people of another race. 80.255 05:31, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * If you're offended by the concept of having lists of "minority" people, perhaps you should go back and notice that no mention of minorities or majorities was made in the list you parodied. Admittedly the number of multiracial people is smaller than that of uniracial people, but if we have a list of astronauts, for example, are we then also required to have a list of people who aren't astronauts? But the "disputed" tag next to Harding's name was great. MK 01:29 EST, 24 October 2003
 * Of course I'm not "offended" by the concept of listing minorities - great scientists (for example) are and have always been in a minority, and there's no reason why there shouldn't be a list of great scientists, etc. I do, however, believe that if you start using utterly facile criteria for such lists ("biracial people", etc.), you should at least have the consistency to accept similarly facile criteria for other lists (caucasians, for example). Now, I've nothing against facile criteria per se (some people may use them, and more to the point, what one considers to be facile is very subjective), but you cannot accept one list of people meeting a certain racial criterion, and reject another. The people of both lists are not notable because of their being biracial or caucasian - it is simply an exercise in listing in the hope that some people will find the compiled information useful. Astronauts, however, are notable for the fact that they were astronauts, so any comparison between the two is highly specious. 80.255 07:04, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * My apologies, 80.255. I was directing my remarks towards Zandperl's original post, not towards your response. But because of the timing of our posts and my accidental placement of an extra asterisk, it appeared I was addressing you specifically. MK 14:13 EST, 24 October 2003
 * Ah, very well; sorry - I thought you were addressing me.80.255 19:00, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * I doubt that it's useful, but keep, since I see no specific reason to delete it. A potential cross-referencing nightmare - anyone adding information to it which is not in or added to the page of the individual in question should be hunted down and yelled at. I don't agree that "consistency is key" here - it's a waste of time trying to argue a highly partisan issue by means of analogies that the other side won't accept anyway. However I'd say that either Lists of people by race is worth having or it isn't, and if it isn't worth having then all the sub-lists should go to. Onebyone 09:48, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * DELETE! Like the List of biracial people above and everything of the king. I propose as above a creation of WIKILISTS separate from wikipedia, to include all this trivia collecting mania. I can contribute with List of royal twins, List of royal menatlly disabeled List of historical nervous breakdowns and the likes. It's all fun, but does not belong in an encyclopedia that want to be taken serious. And dont tell me that wiki does not want to be taken serious. Yes we do! Cheers, Muriel Gottrop 09:59, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Delete. We need to get a grip of this proliferation of useless lists. If these people are prominent for having done something, they should be listed for their accomplishments, not just for what they are. -- Arwel 11:29, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * How about a list of people with two arms and two legs? Honestly, I'd rather kill every single list on Wikipedia (and there are many, many useful ones) than tolerate this rampant idiocy. Kosebamse 12:54, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * I agree completely with Kosebamse. Sure it is difficult to determine which lists are valuable, and which are silly, since POV is involved. But most of the ones that end up on this page ARE silly. On the other hand, the concept of having a Wikipedia "Book of Lists" has some real merit, could be popular (the original publications were), and could be a way to simply avoid all this time on discussions which are getting nowhere. Delete "List of Postal Codes" and keep "List of people with one eye" or "List of Caucasians" or "List of Queer Composers" ? I see a lot of not very serious people with agendas here; but mostly I see confusion: how can we (keep/delete) one without (keeping/deleting) another? Make a "Book of Lists" Wikipedia and let the market of contributers determine usefulness/silliness.  Lists that grow and get use, are clearly valuable to some people. Lists that are truly silly will remain static and wither. - Marshman 18:39, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * I agree. A list of lists would be a most useful compilation.80.255 19:00, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * See Lists of people. Onebyone 21:20, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Keep - Caucasians are a recognized minority, no reason to discriminate against them. -- Dawkins
 * This user has only made 5 article edits. Fuzheado 07:04, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Keep all these lists, they do not distract from more useful information, so they do no harm, I find them useful. Making a list of any things in an category is non-NPOV. In some cultures there are no composers or the concept of composition and so they not have created a list of composers, someone made a POV choice when they created a encyclopedia in the first place. We should however, attempt to carry out the titleing and the editing of these "silly" lists, as NPOVly as possible, and I would suggest "List of famous people of European descent", instead of "Caucasian". NAMI (National Alliance for the Mentally Ill), created and distributed flyers with lists of famous people who have had mental illness. The Human Rights Campaign, a national group which promotes gay-straight equality, promotes National Coming Out Day. People don't like these lists because they are about coming out, but both NAMI, HRC, and queers agree that it is a helpful process that decreases bias and stigma. Please keep lists as long as they are relatively NPOV and respectful.Hyacinth
 * While most of these lists indeed do not distract from useful information, some have been outside the borders of good taste or otherwise inflammatory, and many have lead to enormous amounts of totally fruitless dispute. If you find pleasure in wasting other people's time, create a trivia list and have it placed here. Kosebamse
 * Racism warning. Delete! --Ruhrjung 15:06, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Keep - nothing wrong with this list. -Nydigoveth 18:10, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * This user has only made 56 article edits. Fuzheado
 * Delete - Racist and stupid. User:The_lorax 23:09 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * This vote appears to be invalid given that the user has made only 4 edits. 80.255 04:41, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Please delete this inflammatory, stupid and indefensible article. It serves no purpose other than to start flame wars. The fact that a small number of people are defending this pseudo-article boggles the mind. RK 22:06, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)
 * Delete - in case it wasn't completely obvious why. Fuzheado 07:30, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Keep - useful list, nothing wrong with it JohnK 07:37, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * This user has only made 3 article edits. Fuzheado
 * Delete - I can't comprehend how this article can be useful. dave 05:17, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Keep, and I'll do the anti newbie research for you. I've made several edits, but have only been around from the begining of October.Gentgeen 07:29, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * It might bear repeating here that this article was only created to make a point (by Zandperl), who I don't think even wants the article to exist, but merely wants its (alleged) absurdity to reflect on the List of biracial people. I should also repeat my thoughts which appeared on VfD, since they have since been scattered to various talk pages:  I believe it is clear we only want lists where the group is small relative to the supergroup it's contained in.  Thus, List of German-Chileans would be reasonable, but List of Spanish-speaking Chileans would not be.  This goes for smaller proportions.  There is no reason to have List of Hungarian men, when List of Hungarians will do fine.  This probably applies down to 30% or 25% at least, and furthermore I'd go lower if the number is large in absolute terms, which would exclude the major continent-scale races.  I suppose the precise threshold would depend on how interesting the feature is.  In the case of being "caucasian" (in the sense of "white"), there are also problems of precise definition (North Africans?  Sephardim?  Armenians?).  The only interesting material yet to appear on the caucasians list is the bit about Warren G. Harding; maybe for that we can have a List of people of disputed racial ancestry, or some more elegant title. -- VV 07:50, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Please keep this list. Try to not let reverse discrimination cloud your vision against having a list of caucasians.  It is useful and pointful to have this.  I understand the above comment about "caucasian" not being completely defined, but you have the same problem with lots of other races and even nationalities.  Borders aren't fixed, land passes from nation to nation and people's nationalities do so as well.  I don't think my comments here are even needed, because lots of people have already said good things about keeping it, and I hope you will do the right thing.  Just don't delete it. -Hoskie 18:02, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can explain what you mean by "reverse discrimination". No one is being "discriminated" against.  The implication seems to be that I or others support List of negroes or some such; if so, you will have to show me a single person who has said so; I certainly explicitly said I'd exclude all major continent-scale races.  The point about ill-definition was a minor one, less important than the point about relative and absolute size (which you did not address), but yes race is much less clear-cut than political borders.  And yes the problem exists with other races, so again tell me who is proposing such lists for other races and having their "vision clouded". -- VV 20:54, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Delete this nonsensical article. This really is so absurd it beggars belief. What next? List of people with brown hair, List of people with eyebrows, List of people who shave??? FearÉIREANN 20:07, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * I'll add one more problem with this list: it can never be anywhere even close to complete (even with only "famous" people). -- VV 20:54, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The following is a list of the lists where all or most members could be copied to List of caucasian people, together with the number of people on it. This is intended to give an idea of how big this list should be if it is to come anywhere near complete, and thus how dumb it is to keep it. Numbers in brackets are the number of people on the list.


 * Kings of the Picts (40)
 * List of Kings of Dalriada (30)
 * List_of_British_monarchs (60)
 * Prime_Minister_of_the_United_Kingdom (80)
 * List_of_20th_century_classical_composers (200 caucasian?)
 * List_of_classical_music_composers (120 caucasian?)
 * List_of_male_movie_actors (500 caucasians?)
 * List_of_female_movie_actors (500 caucasians?)
 * List of French monarchs (50)
 * Prime Minister of Australia (30)
 * Prime Minister of Sweden (40)
 * List of Governors General of Canada (60)

etc. etc. DJ Clayworth 20:48, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The new deletion policy should noted, whereby many of the above votes were not taken into serious consideration when evaluating the decision to delete the article as they had been made by users who had not made the required number of edits.

'''This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate up to the point of deletion and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the new method of assessing voting, should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages.