- List of German Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
- Strong Overturn Wow. Looking back at this it's truly amazing. I'd really love to know how the majority of all of the other ethnic American groups survived the last mass deletion effort, but, by and large, the largest contributor was deleted. This is all very unbalanced, socially ignorant and absurd. The "concensus" verdict didn't make much sense, especially with extremely similar pages in existence. -- Alexander Lau 14:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per excellent reasoning by the closer. The outcome of discussions on similar articles do not have a direct bearing on the outcome of this discussion.
ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC) [reply ]
- Endorse (my) closure.
☎ 22:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC) [reply ]
- Comment - Right there in the Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations policy, it says List of Jewish musicians is notable. Then there is Lists of American Jews, with its List of Jewish Americans AfD, List of Jewish Americans AfD#2, Lists of American Jews AfD, and Lists of Jewish-Americans AfD. At a minimum, let's form a consensus here to get rid of the sentence
Whilst some cross-categorizations are notable (for example, List of Jewish musicians), a majority are not.
from Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. Wikipedia should not show favoritism. -- Jreferee t/c 22:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is not a cross-categorization. --Dhartung | Talk 23:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- People from America organized by ethnic German ancestry. -- Jreferee t/c 00:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not even close to a cross-categorization. That's the definition of an ethnic group. Cross-categorization would be ethnic group by occupation, for example -- two entirely different buckets. --Dhartung | Talk 20:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - The closer interpreted the debate correctly and finally may have moved us forward on this issue. We let these lists of <x> Americans get way out of hand. See Lists of Ethnic Americans. AfD is the place to address them. -- Jreferee t/c 00:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The very page you linked to makes it pretty clear that AfD is not the place to address them, as the results have been haphazard and arbitrary: there is really nothing which distinguishes this particular list, or any of the others which have been deleted, from the many other "List of <x> Americans" which have survived AfD. Also, the that discussion shows an emerging consensus that ethnic group lists should not all be deleted; if anything there were valid arguments that lists based on non-notable ethnic categorizations should be deleted, but I don't believe anyone is arguing that
German American is a non-notable ethnic group. DHowell 03:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC) [reply
- Overturn reading the close, the closer admitted the cogency of each set of arguments, agreed they were each based in policy, and chose which set he preferred. This is not the role of an admin; the role is to judge the consensus of the reasonable policy based arguments, not weigh different considerations of policy against each other. The community does that. Over-categorization was just one of t he issues discussed--it is not necessarily obvious why this a very broad intersection like this is wrong. Perhaps we need a policy discussion on this, perhaps at not, to establish whether this type of list is permitted , rather than trying to do it by trying to delete them one at a time. DGG (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you read the close properly, you'll note I said both sets of arguments were excellent, but most of the keeps were arguing that this was a notable ethnic group - which is probably true, but that wasn't the article under discussion; we have an article on the ethnic group
☎ 12:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC) [reply ]
- Well, the significance of a list of German Americans is largely a product of the significance of the
German American cross-section. The said arguments were not a priori reasons to keep the article, but they do seem relevant. If the concept of a bridge wasn't notable or was only marginally notable, we probably wouldn't have a list of bridges. — xDanielx T/ C 20:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC) [reply- We probably shouldn't have a
☎ 10:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC) [reply ]
- What, in your opinion, would be a valid argument to justify a list on Wikipedia? DHowell 03:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn Admins are perfectly free to weigh in with opinions, but opinions go to the bottom of the discussion, not to the top. Consensus for deletion was not given. ~ trialsanderrors 06:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As per above, perhaps actually reading the closing statement would help. Most of the opinions about keeping were based on
☎ 12:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC) [reply ]
- I read it. It's the typical "I get to decide which argument is valid" admin powergrab that's become so prevalent around here. That you don't understand the rules on spinout lists is just the icing on the cake. ~ trialsanderrors 19:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It wasn't a "powergrab" and I understand the "rules" on spinout lists, thanks. The role of the closing admin is to assess the arguments - if not, we'd have a bot closing AFDs. Yeesh, it's not a difficult concept.
☎ 10:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC) [reply ]
- Slight overturn - reasonable arguments on both sides. The debate essentially comes down to the significance of a particular cross section in relation to each list member, and as this is really just an issue of different standards for different editors, I think it should be left to (lack of) consensus. — xDanielx T/C 20:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. I think this was an honest but mistaken close. There are bad lists but this one was reasonably well annotated and cited. The closer relied on the "principal argument" that the list documents a loose association, yet it is one that is considered important by society. I'm skeptical of the relevance myself, but we derive our work from secondary sources; if a secondary source can be found that documents a person's ethnicity in this manner, that's sufficient for me. Somebody else made the judgement. --Dhartung | Talk 20:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Certainly Neil's argument above argument is among the plausible ones, but it should have been made in the discussion. If there's a approximately balanced discussion and an admin has an opinion on it, he should add his views to the others, and then someone else can evaluate. I have a definite opinion on it too, but I argued it in the discussion; I would not have closed, and used my own opinion as the reason as if it had more weight than anybody else's. DGG (talk) 21:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What argument? You mean where I explained my close? How would that have been an argument to make in the discussion? Did you read the closing statement? Again, yeesh.
☎ 10:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC) [reply ]
- Strong overturn - Thoroughly sourced and encyclopedic article about the second largest ethnic group in the United States. Previous delete decision was made against consensus, previous DR was similarly closed "delete" against consensus, and current consensus is to keep and improve such articles, if the ethnic group is notable. In this case, the ethnic group is certainly notable. Badagnani 08:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, for crying out loud. Nobody has, at any point, suggested the ethnic group was not notable. We have a great article about the ethnic group, at
☎ 09:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC) [reply ]
- I chose my words carefully, so please watch your tone when you imply that another editor doesn't know what he is talking about. My comment was based on evidence, namely: 1) the content of the article before its deletion (against consensus) and 2) the behavior of the deleting admins. It's interesting that you yourself were the admin who upheld the deletion, very much against consensus. As regards this article and the similarly deleted list of Norwegian Americans (and several others), now that these impeccably sourced and annotated articles are gone, since there was no effort to merge the content into the articles you mention, the information about who exactly is of these heritages is absolutely gone. This is a severe problem for our users who come here looking for this information, and a very poorly considered decision. It is not unreasonable to maintain a well-sourced and annotated list of Norwegian Americans (or any other ethnic group notable enough to merit its own article), as many of our users will require such data for their research. Badagnani 20:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong overturn: per consensus here. Leuko 19:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse the problems with this article apply to the others, but results differ. The damned that you didn't (nominate them all together) problem. Is it German citizenship or ethnicity? Or a mish-mash,
WP:SYNTH), what reliable sources tell us that everyone on the list is at least that much German. These lists also fail for another inescapable reason: views of citizenship and ethnicity are of passing validity, fluid, and are fully capable of reinvention. Was Einstein a German-American? Shouldn't we consult the local German laws at the time of his emigration to the US to find this out (as we would with any other person) - then you might be surprised to learn that he wasn't German ethnically or by citizenship under those laws. Is the Queen of England German? (I realize she's not American, so wouldn't be on this list in any event, but inquiring minds want to know where someone of her pedigree ought to fall). What about Jackson Browne? He was born there, to a US serviceman and his American wife. But accident of birth doesn't confer rights in most countries - Germany included - so by German law, he's not German. Again, a morrass. And as I've said why should WP be in the business of classifying people by our view of their ethnicity? Without any real-world implications this seems the height of folly and makes us look more like a racial site than an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 —Preceding comment was added at 21:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
- Comment - There's no morass. We must be reasonable in everything we do. In Jackson Browne's case, if he has no known German ancestry, and reliable sources do not state that he self-identifies as German American or that others have labeled him as German American, we would not include him in the article. However, as the article would be well sourced and annotated, if it were decided via consensus that he should be included (i.e. if there is a section of that list devoted to Americans who have been born in Germany, whether they are of German ancestry or not--something I personally don't necessarily support), all of what we're discussing about the qualifications for his inclusion would be discussed in the annotation following his name. Badagnani 21:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. I think that it is uncontestable that ethnic Americans are notable groupings. It is also well established policy that it is acceptable to have both a list and a category for members of notable groups. As such, the policy arguments for keeping are quite valid, and were not given due weight by the closing admin. The proper closure of this discussion was "keep" by the strength of the arguments. The article clearly needed a cleanup; not all of the sourcing was reliable, and the inclusion criteria needs to be better defined - but it should not be our definition, it should be the definition of reliable secondary sources. The unreliably sourced material needs to go, and the people who are not themselves identified as a German american need to be cut. Most of the concerns of those opining delete can be addressed by appropriate sourcing. What we want is people who are notable as being a German American, not merely people who are notable and one obscure source, possibly not even a reliable one, has said that they have some German ancestry. I also note that closing admins are wrong to discount "It's useful" arguments in a deletion discussion - we exist to be an encyclopedia, and the "useful" articles are exactly the ones we should have - provided that the use is an encyclopedic use. Deleting useful articles, lists, and categories harms the encyclopedia, and we should always put the encyclopedia first in our considerations.
GRBerry 21:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC) [reply
- Overturn The closing admin dismisses the keep arguments by saying they justify the
deletion policy, this list should have been kept. DHowell 03:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC) [reply
- overturn and keep these and other such categories that were wrongfully deleted. Hmains 03:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|
