Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Official native american musicians

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 merge to List of Native American musicians which all are invited to do. Sandstein 10:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Official native american musicians[edit]

Listcruft and undeserving of an article. Category:Native American musicians suffices. —EdGl 01:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is already a category based on Native american musicians. Sr13 02:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge per SR13 and Hyperbole. POV fork of the ~~category~~ list. Chubbles 02:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any non-duplicative information into List of Native American musicians. A list and a category can and often do co-exist, but the list of Native American musicians already exists. --Hyperbole 03:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Hyperbole. Danny Lilithborne 03:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm tempted to keep because List of Native American musicians is sometimes flooded with people who maybe have a grandfather who said he was Native American. The issue of ethnic impostors among American Indians is rather large, although possibly a subsection of List of Native American musicians could be created for those who can prove/confirm their status.--T. Anthony 04:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that would be a POV fork. Bad idea. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suppose it would. Whenever I do religious lists I often am pressured into confirming their religiosity in strict terms, but any alleged ethnicity doesn't need to be confirmed in anyway as questioning that is offensively POV. Oh well the game works as it works, I try not to think about logic to it as I once did.--T. Anthony 05:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to respond to what I think your point was. If it's irrelevant, ignore me.
- The issue I have is not with people faking Native American heritage. They simply should not be in the list. People would shove into your section people who have confirmed Native American heritage, but who they feel do not have enough. That is POV, and it can be solved by just not including people with unsourced heritage. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh I see. I agree with that. The original list is a bit better than it once was, but yeah just avoiding having any fakes would be enough. A subsection like I whimsically suggested would be disruptive. Although possibly additional information on ancestry in the list could be acceptable. (Like if it's a parent, grandparent, great-great grandparent, etc)--T. Anthony 05:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What a stupid idea for an article, and its barely literate. The Crying Orc 08:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (and redirect). Why doesn't the list we already have require the evidence mentioned in this one? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - into the existing category --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 21:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per earlier comments. Then write to Congress complaining about any law that differentiates between people on the basis of ethnicity. Existing truth-in-advertising laws would work just as well, surely ( possibly with some minor tinkering ). Bad enough that some ghastly people discriminate against their fellow men on the basis of where their great-great-grandfathers were born, without this kind of stuff. WMMartin 16:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse rant ! WMMartin 16:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. Sharkface217 03:45, 2 December 2006 (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.