Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Norwegian Americans

The deletion review for this article may be found here.

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 delete. Arguments to "keep" in a number of cases lack any justification for retaining the list (Richard Arthur Norton, DHowell, Hmains, Badagani, Pia, Drieakko, Nomen Nescio), and a number of others (Steve Hart, Storm Surfer, DGG, Mikka) don't really provide any justification for why we should keep the list. In this case, DGG's duplicate argument is ignored. Neil ム 09:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Norwegian Americans[edit]

Relisting per suggestions from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans. Also nominated are the fellow Scandinavians (as there should be no reason to keep some but not delete others).Bulldog123 08:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom Bulldog123 02:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is what categories are for.----^DarkTea © 12:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Random and pointless. Dominictimms 14:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per intersection of nationalities/loosely associated items . Replace with category (if that's appropriate) Corpx 16:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, this is why we have categories. USE THEM. Burntsauce 18:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Until there is a Wikipedia policy against ethnicity lists, these are no less worthy than any others; see Wikipedia:Lists: "Lists and categories have different properties, and having both a list and a similar category is not necessarily redundant." As for these lists in particular, they have the virtue of being fairly concise and certain to stay that way no matter how broadly defined, unlike List of German Americans, English Am., Irish Am., etc. So the lists are more manageable and notable at the same time. At a minimum, in considering these ethnicity lists individually, there is no particular reason to delete these specific ones that would not apply to every list, and the decision was already made not to delete every list. Deleting these lists without a reason specific to them would just be a random act therefore and generally kind of a dumb way to run an encyclopedia. -Langrel 20:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They should all be in categories only.--JForget 23:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All If these were indiscriminate lists of blue links, I'd agree that a category would be just fine, although I think we tend to overcategorize (as with Peter Graves, that well known "1926 birth, American character actor, American film actor, American television actor, Best Drama Actor Golden Globe (television), Living person, New Jersey actor, Norwegian-American person, from Minneapolis, Minnesota, and from Sussex County, New Jersey, Spaghetti Western actor, University of Minnesota alumnus" guy. While it's rather odd to see three Scandinavian nations getting nominated at the same time (can't decide where Denmark belongs, I guess), these actually have something else in common, which is that they're all well-sourced, something that is to be encouraged in Wikipedia, with an attempt to explain the connection. Of the three, the Norwegian-Americans list has the most room for improvement... currently, its footnotes go to a website which explains the Norwegian ancestry a bit better. Mandsford 00:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do tend to overcategorize and that's why there are limitations to it WP:OCAT. However, we also tend to overlist and destory the purpose of a list WP:OLIST. When category intersection rolls around (the near future) we're not going to have to worry about what ethnicity-occupation intersections we don't have. These lists do end up being a random assortment because so many of these people are related by nothing more than having an ancestor from the same country. We don't even list distant family members in this way. Categories completely suffice. Bulldog123 02:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:NOT. Far too broad and indiscriminate, practically trivial. VanTucky ^(talk) 16:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as aides to navigation and for information purposes as well, per WP:LIST and Langrel. Bearian 18:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian, on the AfD for List of English Americans you put "Delete per Corpx, Arkyan, Dark Teal, et al. CAT" but here you imply WP:LIST has some kind of requirement for keeping all lists that can be poorly sourced. Why is there so much of a difference between a list of Scandinavian Americans and a list of English Americans? Bulldog123 06:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep all no valid reason for deletion provided above. Valid per WP:LIST as information, navigation. These well-sourced, verifiable lists cannot be replicated by categories, because of information provided about field of endeavor. --JayHenry 18:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until the software provides category intersections, at least. As others have said, these lists are sourced and more useful than mere categories. — The Storm Surfer 21:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As categories by occupation, they fail overcategorization. So why wouldn't this be a form of overcategorization in lists? See the essay WP:OLIST for ethnicity-occupation intersections. Bulldog123 07:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be overcategorization to divide these into separate categories by occupation. Grouping them on one list is just sensible. Kappa 08:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Categories will never be flexible enough to do this, and there is no policy to prefer them to lists. this seems to be sataisfactory for the topic. DGG (talk) 06:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy to indicate these lists should be created either. This extreme view of policy is a dying argument because most AfDs run on consensus when there is no policy violation in play. We can make tons of lists that can be sourced and verifiable, but whether they are notable or have importance as an individual article relies on community opinion. There is no other way to do it. If we were to allow just any lists sourced by "reliable" references, wikipedia would turn into a memorial service, a trivia basket, and a huge collection of loosely connected names and items. WP:LIST really says nothing to help us determine what should and what shouldn't be kept. Bulldog123 06:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Over categorization. Most are blue links, so the argument that it is a repository of red links is invalid. An argument which I never understood, if they're notable, they would probably already have an article. A category might be ok, but I still think it's overcategorization. i ^said 06:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Far too loose a connection between listees, overcategorization. Mad Jack 21:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and debate at the Portal level. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete suffers from numerous problems: how Fooian must someone be to listed here and what WP:RSes will tell us that the individual is sufficiently Fooian, and how exactly is being XX% Fooian important to categorize based upon. Once again, WP should not be categorizing on race/ethnicity. Carlossuarez46 00:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this, we shouldn't have lists based on race/ethnicity or, in my opinion, religion. But I don't think there is consensus to kill lists based on nationalities. The question is rather how far back in time can these lists go before nationality can no longer be claimed. -- Steve Hart 00:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - in its current revision I can't see that these fails WP:LIST. (And I like lists, I find that they serve a different purpose than categories.) On the other hand, there are millions of people born in the US with Scandinavian roots. We do need a policy discussion about lists. -- Steve Hart 00:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all There is clearly no policy-based reason to delete these lists. Therefore, the consensus of the many editors who contributed to these lists (including over fifty who contributed to the Swedish American list) outweighs a dozen or so who essentially don't like them. DHowell 01:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So WP:EFFORT is a better argument than WP:IDONTLIKEIT? User:Jack O'Lantern contributed to these lists and still thinks they should be deleted, so I don't think the assumption that everyone who may have made an edit to this page would want it kept is fair. Bulldog123 06:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep all and ignore the editors who chief purpose in WP is deleting things they personally do not like and those who object at every turn to anything regarding the ethnic groups who make up the US population. Hmains 02:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep all - encyclopedic and needed for our users. Contribute constructively, not destructively, to our project, and do not WP:POINT disruptively propose this article for deletion again, thanks. Badagnani 02:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful. Pia 07:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USEFUL Corpx 07:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "USEFUL" essay you cite above is idiotic, and does not become less so the more times it is cited in these sorts of damaging, WP:POINT AFDs. Badagnani 07:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is idiotic, should it be linked to as a "See Also" item on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion page? Corpx 07:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked through several thousand of your edits, and see that you only make edits to try to delete things. I don't think I wish to "debate" with someone like that anymore; hope you don't take that personally. Badagnani 07:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody needs to make sure wikipedia doesn't turn into a triviabag because of overzealous editors. Corpx does a great job. Bulldog123 08:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between "triviabag" and "valuable content." You don't seem to be able to distinguish between the two, and when knowledgeable editors prove the value of articles such as this one, you denigrate them with this sort of language. It's time to move on, and begin creating your own valuable content, or work to delete actual "junk" articles. This is not one of them. Badagnani 08:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, eye of the beholder I suppose, but you're taking this way too seriously and getting a little uncivil. Bulldog123 21:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Useful" seemed a particularly useful shorthand phrase at my 2 am energy level. Sorry to have skipped the essay on the uselessness of the word "useful". I meant "useful" as in "non-trivial to many users", as in "satisfies usage needs not covered by categorization alone", as in "a good starting point for further research into a population sector", and as in "a good way for students to get quick access to footnotes on a general population sector and to find examples of people in this population sector." Pia 17:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Using categories for this would overload the related articles. As a Finn, I am very much aware how important this kind of lists are for the Finns. Just to point out an example, the visit of Pamela Andersson this summer led to nation-wide hysteria. Can you believe that, uh. --Drieakko 07:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no List of Finnish Americans on the Finnish wikipedia? Bulldog123 07:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly is: [1]. --Drieakko 08:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly a list like we have. Bulldog123 08:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How come? The list is at the end of the Finnish article, and it seems to cover pretty much the same names. --Drieakko 08:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've been proven wrong, Bulldog123, by someone who knows more than you about this particular subject. It's time to move on (and maybe write an article or two of your own, contributing valuable content to Wikipedia? You will enjoy it!). Badagnani 08:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Finnish Wikipedia has an equivalent to Finnish American with a short list at the bottom, apparently unsourced. Once they are sourced, the list will probably be pruned even more. Adding Finnish-American (who are truly notable for their Finnish-Americanness) on Finnish Americans is acceptable in everyone's view. There isn't a list of Finnish Americans alone though, so my point stands. Drieakko, are there any other X-American lists? Bulldog123 20:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Finnish Wikipedia list has 38 names, the comparable English list 34 names. The Finnish list is unsourced but the English list is well sourced. Much of the Finnish Wikipedia suffers from the lack of proper sources. Finnish Wikipedia covers only a fraction of English Wikipedia articles (some 0.5%, I think) so claiming that some articles in English Wikipedia would not be worth existing because they are not in Finnish Wikipedia is just strange. --Drieakko 08:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on notability: I think it's relevant that histories of Finns in the U.S. commonly note the contributions of specific (notable) Americans of Finnish descent, not as trivia but as a pertinent part of that historical treatment. Also, the existence of notable members of an ethnicity can itself be a component of that ethnic identity in the U.S. (See, e.g., "Survey of Finnish-Americans", item 45.) And these lists, by definition, include only those whose ethnic ancestry has, in fact, been noted in the wider world outside Wikipedia. -Langrel 18:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the "how-Fooian" concern: The fact is that this slope is not terribly slippery. Even if you broadly qualified any notable American with any degree of publicly known Finnish ancestry, for example, you would still have a very short list. (Personally, I would be happy to be proven wrong about that, but I don't expect I will be.) -Langrel 18:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep all Ethnicity is important, and a major connection between people--or at least, people themselves generally think so. the criterion should obviously be "self-identified" which lets us ignore what percentage of ancestry is sufficient. DGG (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Both sides have reasonable arguments but at present I tend to be slightly in favour of the "keep" arguments.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A notable notion. Classification not POV. `'Míkka 01:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm so sick of these retarded "this is what categories are for" arguments. No one will click through a plain, unsorted list of names. And if you try to subcategorize by professions, you are overcategorizing per WP:OCAT. Kappa 08:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem in Wikipedia in general regarding categories is that there is no way referencing article's inclusion in a category. Whenever you need to source that, you also need to start making lists. --Drieakko 08:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.