Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Native 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 of the debate was KEEP. Owen× ☎ 23:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Native Americans[edit]

WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Another example of what should be a Category and not an Article Bob 20:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why should it? Categories do not replace lists. Policy referred to is completely irrelevant imo. CalJW 20:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Wikipedia articles are not mere collections of external or internal links or Internet directories. The list can be bettered served through categories and linked to through sites dealing with Native Americans --Bob 20:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — lists can provide additional information not available via categories. Topic is valid encyclopedic material IMO. — RJH 23:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not indiscriminate information. Also add some South American people. Kappa 01:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Although a part of me would prefer having separate lists by nation as "Native American" is broad enough it includes peoples with little in common with the rest like the Inuit.--T. Anthony 03:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utterly meaningless and misleading list. Based on its logic, I should add John Kerry to List of Jews.-- JJay 04:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep problem with maintaining separate lists for individual tribes is the amount of intermarriage. Many people with indigenous American roots claim mixed ancestry. Durova 10:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So if one's ancestry is "mostly Scottish" as I learn in Heather Locklear, that actually means famous Native American? Are you saying she claims to be mostly Scottish, but her true roots are indigenous? I'm confused. -- JJay 10:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A person whose heritage traces to only one tribe is a straightforward matter: are they a registered member of the tribe? Standards for inclusion are well established. What becomes problematic is how a tribe-specific list would classify someone who is Comanche/Apache/Cherokee. Durova 04:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-You have a point Durova, one per each tribe would be awkward. Then again JJay has a point too. There is a tendency for celebrities to fake being Native American or part Native Americans. Or to exaggerate the importance of what ancestry they do have in that area. Cher was noted for that. She is part Cherokee, maybe, but she's mostly Armenian. This is a big headache for many tribes. Anyway it seems like maybe it should be limited to those whose ancestry is substantially native. I'm not sure if there's a way to determine that though.--T. Anthony 15:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this list is kept, then there should be no argument whether or not List of white people is kept? --Bob 18:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Bob submitting List of white people today to make a point does not seem very cool to me. Nevertheless, Heather Locklear may qualify for inclusion to your list considering her mostly Scottish background. Please add her to List of African Americans as well, owing to her African roots as discussed in her bio. Folks, are we doing genealogy here or what? This all seems kind of nutty to me.-- JJay 19:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to ruin this discussion, but I took Locklear and Cher off.--T. Anthony 04:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, add her to both of those lists, and while you're at it, why not add her to a List of heterosexual actors, List of heterosexual women and List of blonde-haired actors as well.--Bob 22:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While we're at it, have a look at this: List of African Americans. Now, if this is deleted, and Native Americans is kept, then we have a problem as standards should be the same for any list. Indiscriminately keeping some and deleting others is not good. There should be a policy on this. --Bob 22:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Valid topic, bad presentation. We've been through this before; Canadian First Nations do not belong under the umbrella term "Native Americans", because that term is simply too open to confusion and disagreement about whether it pertains to North and South America, or specifically to the United States. (This is substantially reinforced, I might add, by the presence of a US-specific "ethnic subcultures of the United States" template on the article.) And the list of Canadians provided here doesn't even begin to cover it anyway, and Robbie Robertson is filed in the wrong section, to boot. Frankly, this list isn't appropriate; each country should have its own distinct list. Split each country out to its own "List of (insert culturally-appropriate term here) from (country)" sublist; keep this title only as pertaining to the US in particular. Bearcat 23:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme keep, people don't seem to be getting the idea that categories and lists serve different purposes, and this repeated attempt to delete articles about minorities is beginning to look more and more suspicious. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't compress all into tiny list. StabRule 23:35, 27 November 2005 (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.