Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkish-Americans

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The result was Nomination Withdrawn.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: Wikipedia: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 16:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Turkish-Americans[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, The rationale for deletion given in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans was WP:NOT#DIR. 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 20:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Keep this, as well as all other list of citizens of USA by nationality. List is rich and informative. We aren't guilty that there're so many peoples on this world. At last, why do we have encyclopedias? Articles about so many things. Some things someone finds unimportant, but somebody other earns for living on those and makes millions of dollars out of that. In these lists, only the persons that are worth of mentioning should be there, not just "any man picked up from the street". At last, these info is useful. Do you know how many successful international business meetings and business cooperations (I mean all of them, from small shop and taxi cab events to statemen's meetings) began/became more appreciated, just because someone knew whome "belonged" certain "celebrity"? Kubura 22:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —Noroton 22:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep As Leuko has thoughtfully noted, this article, unlike the others, is not sourced, which is, I assume, the reason that it's been nominated. However, I'm not as broadmined as Leuko. Why judge an article on its quality? NUKE EM ALL! Mandsford 23:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 02:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 03:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: These lists often (or should) be referenced with birth and death dates, occupations, etc. Categories don't do that. ExRat 04:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I agree with ExRat and Badagnani. In addition, this mass nomination is too POINTY. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It has 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 04:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Badagnani. I started inserting the sources, assuming we need them. You can help, they are supposed to be on their individual wiki-articles (if necessary). The ones I added are links for now (no citation template). Google became my friend, as usually editors do not give sources for ethnicity, the place of birth etc (maybe b/c nobody fact tags them). Deniz^T_C 03:57, 13 September 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.