Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silesian 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 delete. ‑Scottywong | babble _ 16:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Silesian Americans[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bare stub which doesn't actually correspond to the real topic. While there is a small (~300) community of people in the United States who identify themselves as ethnically Silesian, that is not the same thing as merely having ancestors from the geographic region of Silesia -- the region was historically populated by ethnic Slavs and ethnic Germans and ethnic Jews, with very little intermarriage between the groups. Identifying with a Silesian ethnicity, however, is a Slavic phenomenon, not a German or Jewish one -- for Germans and Jews, "Silesian" is not a distinct subtype of German or Jewish identity, but a purely geographic marker with no more ethnic significance than "Mecklenburg German" or "Volhynian Jew". But most of the people listed here are either Germans or Jews -- Kevin Hannan is the only one here with any indication of a connection to the Slavic community of Silesia, and even in his case the Silesian ethnicity is just stated and not actually supported by a source. So a person is not a "Silesian American" just because they or some of their ancestors were born in Opole or Świdnica -- they're "Silesian American" only if they or their ancestors were Slavs. And furthermore, the article doesn't actually contain any content besides the list of people who mostly don't belong here. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can actually source and substance an article about the real topic, but this as constituted has almost nothing to do with the actual ethnic group of Silesian Americans. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This feels like a case of "AFD isn't cleanup." As it is right now, I think this article needs work, but I think if Italian Americans is okay, this is okay too. South Nashua (talk) 16:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Americans is (a) substantive, (b) reliably sourced, and (c) actually about the topic that correctly corresponds to its title. None of those things is true of this article. And "AFD is not cleanup" or not, if this article were simply cleaned up to remove the people whose names don't belong in it, it would become immediately speediable under criterion A3 as containing virtually no content beyond a simple restatement of the title. Bearcat (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you're an expert on this, WP:SOFIXIT. South Nashua (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no substance or sourcing available to "fix" it with. Fixing it would entail stripping the inappropriate inclusions from the list, the end, with nothing left to hang an article on. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's already Silesian-American Corporation and around a dozen pages on the Silesian-American category. I am willing to assume there is more out there beyond that. South Nashua (talk) 19:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even Silesian-American Corporation offers no sourced evidence that it means Silesian as an ethnicity. It's called that because its parent corporation was based in Katowice, not because anybody associated with it is sourceable as ethnically Silesian — all of the individual people named in that article are German, and not even Germans-from-Silesia but Germans-from-Germany involved in taking over the company after Germany invaded Poland in WWII. Which mean that it's also a geographic marker and not an ethnic one, and thus has no substantive body text relevance that could possibly be expanded to anything more than a "see also" entry either. Bearcat (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is WP:NOTEVERYTHING. The fact of the existence of a very small group of people call themselves 'Silesian' does not make for WP:N. Arguments for keeping the article amount to WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSIMPORTANT... Oh, and, of course you can add WP:NOR as the primary policy being invoked. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't believe this term is, well, used anywhere. It seems to be a Wikipedia-invention, stemming from Category:Silesian American (both the article and the category were created by the same editor at the same time around 2013). This seems OR at best. While there are of course Silesians there is no Silesian disapora in the US or anywhere else. PS. I am from Silesia :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the equivalent German descent category, because at the date of emigration Silesia was part of Germany and earlier Prussia. All the surnames look as if they are German ones (not Polish) to me. The company which attempted to manage certain interests in Silesia during WWII may not fit well, but is rather differnet from the present content anyway. Silesian is not an ethnicity. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just gone through the notables list, and only Hans Georg Dehmelt remains (by virtue of where he was born according to the date, although he is identified as being a German-born: he's been 'claimed' here and here). The rest were completely unsourced, so there's nothing left to merge. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 22:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as alternate ethnography. Not encyclopedically relevant. Despite being a micro-stub, it still manages to be original research cited to primary sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only found 10 results from Google Books. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 09:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom as above editors, especially Iryna Harpy who summed up the rationale for deletion very succinctly. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:26, 28 April 2017 (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.