Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Caucasian Americans

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Caucasian Americans

Yet more pointless listcruft, impossible of maintenance, disputable as to usefulness and dubious of intent. Tonywalton  | Talk 19:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete this version is just plain silly. A list for Americans whose ancestry traces back to the Caucasus region might be useful, but even that is doubtful. Caerwine 19:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete this should have been speedy deleted anyhow, since its pretty obviously a list that would excessivly large. -- {Zaf} 19:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment if you can find a criterion along those lines in WP:CSD you're looking harder than I did! Tonywalton  | Talk 20:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment Absolutely *not* CSD... HackJandy 21:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom (not to mention, who's got the disk space?). Mark K. Bilbo 19:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment When did disk space become a guideline of WP:AFD? HackJandy 03:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, if List of African Americans and List of Native Americans are here and are kept then why should this not be kept? Or is Wikipedia racist?Gateman1997 20:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment. If it were a serious endeavor, it would have more than six names in the list. 147.70.242.21 22:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment It should be noted that Gateman1997 is the original author of this article. HackJandy 20:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm working on it. This list has only been up for 7 hours.Gateman1997 00:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Two mistakes don't make a correct decision. — Haeleth Talk 00:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ahasuerus 20:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete a list that should gro to include 100,000,000 items. I think I can see where this might go wrong. --Bachrach44 20:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment please see my point below. The List of African Americans has a very manageable amount of names on it, and there are proportionally 6 Caucasian American to every African American in the US. For the list to have 100,000,000 names, one in every 2 white Americans would be noteable Wikipedia entries. HackJandy 08:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; contrary to nominator IMO there is the only one thisng dubious of intent: whether it is a joke or trolling, or even WP:POINT in response to failed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of African Americans (2nd nomination). mikka (t) 20:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I'd be interested to know what you meant there - I think a typo monster ate it. Tonywalton  | Talk 21:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I see there is a Category:English Americans. I shouldn't be here, but I'll work on a kind of list from that.--T. Anthony 10:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

              • Problem with ALL of those groupings is that not every white person fits them. For instance take myself. I'm white... but I'm none of those sub classes. Granted my ancestors were English, Irish, German, French, Dutch, Belgian, Native American, and Scandinavian... but I don't identify with ANY of those groups as the blood is too diluted. I'm simply Caucasian(White).Gateman1997 19:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Although on consideration we don't have a list of Americans based on ancestry from the Caucasus. There is no List of Armenian Americans, List of Georgian Americans, or List of Azeri Americans. If the list is limited to that it could be useful, albeit confusing.--T. Anthony 06:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep. Probably WP:POINT, but Gateman1997 says it best. Either keep them all or delete them all for consistency. HackJandy 21:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC) * I am a major contributor to this page now. Striking my vote HackJandy 11:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • a wise man say pointless consistency is a trait of a limited mind. mikka (t) 21:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
      • "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson.
  • Weak delete on the basis that this is simply too broad a category that is unmaintainable, and potentially could have hundreds of millions of names. And do you include caucasians who immigrate to the US from Canada? The UK? What's the criteria. Forget it -- too, too broad. If one wants to split it up into less broad categories -- and if similar categories have been OK'd for other races -- then fine. 23skidoo 21:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment And what of African Candians who have moved for the US? Would you have issue placing them in the List of African Americans? Would a Jewish Canadian who became a citizen of the US not belong on List of Jewish Americans? There are proportionally 6 times as many people who consider themselves "White" than "Black" according to the 2000 US census. The List of African Americans seems quite managemeable in its current state, and a list six times that size would certainly not contain "hundreds of millions of names. In fact, there are only 200M Cuacasians living in the US today. The fact is only a very small fraction of a percent are noteable. HackJandy 08:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete with extreme prejudice - an overly broad category with only five people in the list? It comes across as a joke page, or possibly an attempt at satire. 147.70.242.21 22:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep and stub. No matter how you personally might think, if we have a list of african americans etc, then we cannot deny a list of caucasian americans, or else we are being racist. Yes, the list is small, but articles are rarely complete when they are first made. Zordrac 23:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep As stated above, if we have a list of African Americans then we should have a list of Caucasian Americans. Deleting this article and keeping the African one would be racist. Jtrost 23:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Edit with exteme prejudice limiting the list to notable Americans who actually trace ancestry to the Caucasus region. Durova 00:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. If that's not done Delete as redundant. I mean really these "Lists of Americans" cover "Caucasian America", in the sense of white America, as well as seems reasonable. Maybe more then seems reasonable even.--T. Anthony 12:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment The American or UK definition of Caucasian does not rely on ancestry from the Caucasus region. HackJandy 20:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete and nominate the list of African Americans again when it's no longer too soon since the last failed attempt to remove this pointless cruft from Wikipedia. All these single-category lists are entirely pointless because they duplicate the category system, but are less functional and not self-maintaining: therefore all of them should be deleted. Don't let previous bad mistakes force us to make worse mistakes in the name of consistency. Reading some of the "keep" votes here, I'm astonished we don't have List of humans yet. — Haeleth Talk 00:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure. Ludicrously broad list: you might just as well have List of words in English or List of right-handed Americans. Not only is this a violation of WP:POINT, it's clear that many of the keep votes above are also intended as violations of WP:POINT.--Calton | Talk 02:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. and lots of other reasons cited above. -- Dalbury(Talk) 02:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Kill it with fire. I can't imagine any possible use for this list. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment I can't imagine any possible use for this list. Usefulness is certainly not a suggested guideline for AFD -- particularly since that is extremely subjective. Encyclopedic is a suggested guideline, and is less subjective. HackJandy 08:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment The List of African Americans out the same way as this list. It has potential. Jtrost 06:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia should be unbiased.  Grue  16:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Unless someone wants to AfD every other race by nation list in a single call then this has as much legitimacy as every other one. Would personally rather see categories used. --StuffOfInterest 18:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Second Calton's opinion. Dentarthurdent (T,C) 21:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - but only when all such lists (like those listed above) are deleted. Andy Mabbett 01:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as possible WP:POINT violation, but mainly because tighter qualifications are needed than "caucasian", which is defined as people whose ancestry can be traced back to Europe, North Africa, West Asia, South Asia and parts of Central Asia. Oh, is that all? That makes this a superset of all the other lists such as List of German Americans and List of French Americans, and one level should be enough. Still, this article is at least marginally better than (but strongly reminescent of) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of white people. Turnstep 02:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this, then delete it again. After we're sure it's deleted, delete it a third time. Just to be safe. Nandesuka 03:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This business of lists is getting out of hand. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - "ethnic" lists only make sense for minority ethnicities. You can call it racist, I call it realist. — PhilHibbs | talk 13:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I voted delete, but does this mean a List of Caucasian Africans would work?--T. Anthony 15:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I do think the artcile is frivoulous, but all the same I don't know what ground for deletion this should be deleted on. This could be a useful article. How so? It could be a disambig (sorta) page that listed the lists of the sub-categories e.g. List of Jewish-Americans and List of Irish-Americans - you see? jucifer 17:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete 72.144.183.24 19:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment The unregistered user above has an activity log after the AFD was proposed ([url]), and is also an active contributor on the List of Jewish Americans. He or she may be a sock puppet. HackJandy 07:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Emphatic delete - this (and similarly-named) list is a meaningless exercise in futility. It fails on several fronts:

1) The definition of the "races" is dubious at best (we all have descended from Africans. Some came to the US after Europe, after Asia, etc.). In many contexts, it is a political, not a social or genetic, difference.

2) The distinction between races is also arbitrary at best. As late as the 1980s (maybe later, but I'm not sure), Louisiana State law required a placement of "Black" on a person's driver's license - regardless of appearance - if the person is at least 1/32 black. Do Paula Abdul, Mariah Carey, and Halle Berry make this article? All have ancestors who lived in Europe.

3) The name of the article - List of Caucasian Americans - is much too vague. Who is going to visit the hospitals on an hourly basis to keep the list up to date?

4) And if you think my question in #3 is silly, so is the idea of having even a Partial list of Caucasian Americans... and I also extend that argument to any "List of **** Americans" on Wikipedia for that same reason. Adding "notable" or "famous" might not make it better, but the title should mention why the individuals on the list deserve to be singled out on Wikipedia besides their so-called race.

5) As far as I am concerned, there is only one race of people on Earth: the human race.

B.Wind 00:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

    • 1) Your feelings on race are irrelevant in the eyes of most governments on the face of this planet. I agree we're all humans when it comes down to it... but that's not the way our governments see it. 2) And the distinction is ambiguous to a point, however as you point out there are limits placed on what constitutes a race for a person. However for the sake of this list Hallie Berry could make a case for being put on it. 3) The name of the list is also just as it should be. To be on Wikipedia a person has to be notable per WP:BIO so to make the list it is implied a person is notable. 4)Point three isn't silly, just misinformed. 5) As I said in point one, the US, Canadian, UK, French, Russian, South African, etc, etc... governments disagree with you.Gateman1997 06:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment B.Wind, with regard to number 2. Paula Abdul is 1/2 of Jewish American. Mariah Carey is 1/2 Irish American. Halle Berry is 1/2 English American. Race, just like religion, seems to be in the eye of the beholder. Halle Berry, for example, would probably take issue being called Caucasian even if she is 1/2 white (url). On the other hand, why would it matter if she is labeled on both the Caucasian page and African American page anyway? Both are correct. HackJandy 08:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment on above. While I've already voted to delete, I have to take issue with #3 and #4: Wikipedia already spells out that lists do not need to be named "List of famous ...", it is implied by being here that the list is of notable people (e.g. List of vegetarians) Turnstep 03:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_List_of_Caucasian_Americans_4191.html"