Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of writers from peoples indigenous to the Americas


 * 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   keep. with an eye towards renaming  MBisanz  talk 13:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

List of writers from peoples indigenous to the Americas

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Too many self-made rules for inclusion; use of WP:SYNTHESIS. Almost completely unsourced or "incorrectly" sourced. Does not distinguish between "Native American writers of anything" and "Native American writers of Native American subjects". Also a conglomerate of writers who's cultures should not all be lumped into the same list, making it a random directory. Bull dog 00:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible keep - Proposing editor seems to primarily edit WP only in an effort to remove articles dealing with ethnicity, which is highly disruptive and damaging to our project, and our users' efforts to find the encyclopedic, verifiable information for which they are looking. Badagnani (talk) 21:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Take your own advice and comment on the content, not the editor. There is no reason for "keep" anywhere in your rationale; only a grudge. Bull dog 00:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * keep - Only one rule that I see: "Self-identify as indigenous peoples." It even lets in controversial members, unless there is authoritative consensus that they are not indigenous peoples.  NJGW (talk) 21:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's the problem. It defines it's own inclusion criteria despite the name of the list: "It has been noted that some writers self-identify in this way without necessarily satisfying tribal membership rules or governmental requirements (e.g. blood quantum)" The fact that it "lets in" controversial members should say that the list can be seen as "controversial." Wikipedia members should not decide who is able or not able to be included in a list like this. Bull dog 22:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sooo... are you trying to say that Wikipedia shouldn't include anything on the site which is inheirently controvercial, or that Wikipedia shouldn't have any lists of "writers from peoples indigenous to the Americas"? NJGW (talk) 22:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not necessary and it serves only as a resevoir for non-notable red links, revert wars, and WP:COI problems. Further, we are not allowed to have unsourced lists per policy. If nobody bothers, or sources can not be found, the only thing left is to delete the article. We have a category, and inclusion in that can only be added if it's explicitly recorded in the article, not by a wikipedia member's discretion. Bull dog 00:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "It's not necessary" is not a violation of policy... more of a POV. I also see many of the entries are sourced.  Should the whole list still be deleted?  NJGW (talk) 03:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The solution is not to delete the article (as the proposing editor has attempted to do time and again to ethnic group articles), but simply to add a short annotation after each name, such as "Ned Martinson, novelist; maternal grandfather was Choctaw and paternal grandmother was Seminole." This would leave no ambiguity. The solution is not to delete the entire article; please stop disrupting Wikipedia to favor your point of view that ethnicity should be ignored or "cleansed" from our encyclopedia. Badagnani (talk) 23:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "The solution is not to delete the entire article" but, apparently, the solution is not to source it and remove unverified entries either? Since you've only harrassed and edit warred with people who have tried. You need to understand that you do not own these articles, and neither do the creators. You also need to understand that WP:OCAT, though not specific to lists, has been applied numerous times, legitimately, as a guideline specifically forbidding some ethnicity lists. Lastly, please cool down and stop throwing out false accusations. Bull dog 00:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sourcing is an important part of our project. However, the proposing editor actually tried to delete entire articles by blanking all text and turning the articles into redirects, without prior discussion. We must be reasonable in everything we do, and that action was clearly unreasonable. In other cases, Google Books sources from published biographies about the individuals in question were removed (see this edit). In other cases, the WP articles about these individuals stated their ethnicity. In each case, the reasonable thing to do would be to evaluate each individual, using "Discussion," and taking time to research their ethnicity and locate a source if that individual's heritage is believed to be in doubt. Simply charging in and blanking dozens, or hundreds of individuals from the lists without taking the necessary time to actually improve them, is not helpful to our users. To reiterate, sourcing is extremely important; let's work together to make all our articles have the finest sources possible, rather than simply editing WP by attempting to delete text and entire articles due to an anti-ethnic groups bias that involves "cleansing" ethnicity from our encyclopedia, as appears currently to be the case. Badagnani (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "rather than simply editing WP by attempting to delete text and entire articles due to an anti-ethnic groups bias that involves "cleansing" ethnicity from our encyclopedia, as appears currently to be the case." - Getting a little tired of the incivility. It's interesting how whenever you refer to "delete entire articles by blanking the text and turning the articles into redirects" you conveniently fail to mention that I moved all legitimate and verifiable entries to the article in which I redirect - which means it is a merge and not a "blank." Bull dog 01:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, really--an examination of the edit history shows that the proposing editor really does only edit WP in an effort to "cleanse" ethnicity. To be fair, s/he attempts to "cleanse" all kinds of ethnicity: Jewish, Asian, European, Native American, etc., so this does show some diversity of interest. Badagnani (talk) 01:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Right because List of songs about Oklahoma (a recent AfD I nominated), is crucial to ethnicity on wikipedia. Bull dog 03:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - the fact that it distinguishes writers only based on ethnicity and not on which topic they write on is not a problem, at least I don't see any arguments or precedents on wikipedia to think that it is. The criteria for inclusion are straight forward, and don't suggest that editors engage in OR to include writers - they can be easily sourced. I would only add one criteria, namely that the author should have a wikipedia article before inclusion on the list. And then I would move the list to List of Indigenous American authors which in my opinion is a much better title since native americans only cover those indigenous people that live in the USA but which is not usually used about indigenous americans elsewhere. Alternatively it could be redefined to include only indigenous authors from the USA and Canada - it seems that noone has actively included authors from south of Texas anyway. The sourcing problem is solved by including only those authors that have wikipedia articles and therefore are provably notable and for whom sources exist. In this way I would support the pruning of all authors in the list that have no corresponding article. ·Maunus· ƛ · 04:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. If kept, I recommend retitling the article as the current title is a bit messy. I had to read it a couple times to make sense of it. No opinion on the AFD itself. 23skidoo (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and consider changing the title. List of writers by ethnicity are established practice here, as they ought to be. individual instances can be discussed at the talk page. The criteria are sufficiently clear, and the grouping meaningful. DGG (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2008 (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.