Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Czechs in Omaha, Nebraska

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 keep. Wizardman 20:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Czechs in Omaha, Nebraska

Czechs in Omaha, Nebraska (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article is unsuitable for an encyclopedia, fails to meet the relevant notability guideline for Wikipedia content, and violates WP:SNOW. Besides if we have an article for Omaha, we might as well have an article for every major city (i.e. Czechs in San Francisco or Czechs in Tokyo) —Noah¢s (Talk) 21:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because I feel that none of these are notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia:

Germans in Omaha (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Greeks in Omaha, Nebraska (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Jewish community in Omaha (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Mexicans in Omaha, Nebraska (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
African Americans in Omaha, Nebraska (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  • Speedy Weak Delete totally NN listcruft. Should've been WP:SNOW Doc Strange (talk) 21:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • You are aware that 1.) this doesn't meet any speedy criteria, and 2.) it's not a WP:SNOW case either? (Snowball usually refers to AfDs where the consensus is glaringly obvious.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, yes i am, but I wasn't looking at the article right. I've changed it from Speedy to Weak as I still believe this is somewhat NN. I mean why is the Czech population in Omaha, Nebraska more notable than the Czech population in Fargo, North Dakota or Jamestown, Rhode Island? (as two examples) Doc Strange (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Reply. The notability of Omaha's Czech population is determined by the reliable sources used in the article, and that's what justifies the existence of each of these articles. The basic criteria for the notability of people is "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Any citation in these articles that counts towards the notability requirement will meet that criteria. If Czechs in Fargo or Czechs in Jamestown, Rhode Island are equally as notable, let there be articles on those communities of people, as well. • Freechild'sup? 20:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Alright, with that being said, you've swayed me enough to change my vote to Keep due to the source material and citation, making it N. I jumped the gun (for one of very few times) and turns out the article is well written and sourced. Doc Strange (talk) 13:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Notability is proven by reliable sources, and as the article demonstrates, the topic of Czechs in Omaha has been notable enough to warrant a number of reliable citations. If Czechs in San Francisco or Czechs in Tokyo are as notable then those could be great additions to WP, as well. None of the aforementioned articles are listcruft, and I would suggest that Doc Strange look at the articles he's supporting for deletion. • Freechild'sup? 22:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Note. This is the second AfD for Jewish community in Omaha, and I would like to note there is also an article entitled African Americans in Omaha, Nebraska which the nominator did not add to the list. Why not? • Freechild'sup? 22:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all, possible speedy keep even. All of these articles are well sourced and don't seem to be a synthesis of ideas. Nominator is basically inverting WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS here by pointing out that other stuff does not exist. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Verifiable by reliable sources --Ryan Delaney talk 22:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all. They are all legit articles. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge - I can understand the motivation to see these articles deleted, but I think the more appropriate action is to merge all of them into one coherent sub-article for Omaha, Nebraska. Upon reviewing each one individually, I find very little reason for separate articles. Omaha was not, nor has it ever been, a balkanized city with distinct neighborhoods where only a single racial group resided; rather it was an integrated city where people of many races resided. Also, there is nothing remarkable about these types of articles; you will find every city in the United States with a diverse citizenry. The US has never been an ethnocentric nation because we simply do not exist as one race, nor have we ever been a single race. I find all forms of balkanization to be distasteful. --Storm Rider (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Reply. Oversimplifying the intricate nature of American history, particularly the history of the Midwest, is an atypical response to any substantive discussion of diversity in the U.S. As separate articles on the Omaha communities of Little Italy, Little Bohemia, and the Near North Side clearly demonstrate, the city most certainly did have distinct ethnic communities that were particularly insular, isolated, and/or segregated. Typecasting Midwestern cities as stagnant beds of suburbia is not a fair response to this AfD, nor is your suggestion to merge these articles together. • Freechild'sup? 23:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Note. For all interested, last August User:Storm Rider and I had a substantial dialog related to this topic at Talk:Mexicans in Omaha, Nebraska. • Freechild'sup? 23:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
No way merge. These articles are a testament to why the Unites States is the greatest country (IMO of course) in the history of civilazation. All cultures and ethnicities are allowed to live as they choose. This multi-culturism brings forth the best that all ethinic groups/cultrures have to offer. The fact that cultures and ethnic groups are distinctly different is a cause to celebrate, not to hide under the table. Omaha, today, might look different then then in the 1850's, but there is no denying that all of the aforementioned ethnic groups were seen as distinct communities. And each ethnic group, because of their background and culture, contributed to Omaha in their own way. But I digress. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, you certainly have stirred up the pot by attempting to gore a sacred cow; I haven't a clue what those comments have to do with merging articles. I guess if there is a reference for anything, the logic is an article is acceptable. And yes, I had lengthy conversation about the Mexican article with Freechild. As a genealogist I can create these same types of articles for city in the United States where a Federal Census was taken. I just find that to be insignificant data for an encyclopedia. There has been no evidence on any of the articles that the communities were insular and absolute; none! Also, there is very little references for the present as demonstrated by the Greek article's present section. Most of what is written there is OR. Together they would form a much stronger sub-article and provide a better understanding of Omaha than separate. It is just an opinion; if it slays your personal sacred cow then that would be a personal problem. --Storm Rider (talk) 07:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Storm Rider, from your scan of the information in the articles surely you can see that they aren't as simple as citing Federal Census data; actually, most of them don't at this point. As for the veracity of the rest of the information in the articles, if you see something missing feel free to add it. Your identification of one section in six articles that is weak does not justify merging the articles; rather it shows that more contributions are necessary. As a genealogist I hope that you could see the potential for this type of article on WP. Rather than original research or one's own point of view, these do and other articles that are verifiable could add a new kind of notable article to WP. I would love to read such an article on Italians in New York City or Swedes in Minneapolis; I do agree with Brewcrewer's comment above. After our dialog on the Mexicans in Omaha article I think you're probably not going to change your mind, but this is my try, and now I'll stop. • Freechild'sup? 13:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
There have been skads of books written about the ethnic make-up of cities, but the problem is that the information is simply not notable when taken individually. What is important is when they are taken in context; i.e. they all belong to the city of Omaha; as a whole they make up the city. The groups do not stand alone, but are part of the whole. Breaking them down into their individual parts destroys the basic reason they are important; together they are Omaha, Nebraska. The city does not exist without them and they do not exist without the city. --Storm Rider (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I admit I was dubious until I actually looked at the articles. Perfectly acceptable stuff, and sourced just fine. No reason to delete. Ford MF (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • keep A good set of articles and a good pattern for more local ethnic history, where most ethnic history actually occurs, where people live. Hmains (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I can't understand why anyone would even think of nominating this encyclopedic article for deletion. Sensiblekid (talk) 05:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete for all. Listcruft can be disguised all you want by writing it in paragraphs and discussing the subjects, but its still just listcruft. Perhaps they could be merged into one list of notable people but I doubt it. Having all these separate articles for ethnicities is just excessive.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 15:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ford MF -20:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tagishsimon (talk • contribs)
  • Merge into one coherent article about ethnic groups in Omaha. Delete as failing to satisfy WP:N and being an indiscriminate listing. The series of articles may go into too much detail, but at least are referenced and informative. Edison (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Clarification? So the articles are too detailed? And they should be merged into one article for that reason? You apparently suggest while they are informative, they could be more coherent as one meta-sized article - is that right? Note that African Americans in Omaha, Nebraska is already 44 kilobytes long as it stands. Could you clarify the reasoning behind your merger suggestion a little more? • Freechild'sup? 17:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Selectively merge the content. Edit out the excessively detailed dissertations on when each ethnicity arrived at whose urging, and who from the old country visited them when, the name of the ethnic baker and butcher, the names of individual unremarkable churches of the ethnicity, and the names and street addresses of unremarkable cemetaries. The articles run on to an excessive length with trivial details, beyond what the subject requires. It is just one small city out of all the cities in the world, and this much detail may go beyond what is encyclopedic or reasonable. The world may not need or want such an exhaustive treatise- or collection of treatises- about the ethnic variety in that one town. Edison (talk) 04:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: An overview article like "Czech immigration into the USA" would be better solution - when it gets created the current text could turn into redirect. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge all to a ethinic groups in Omaha article, Keep African-Americans as a separate fork because of length. I have to agree with Storm Rider and Edison here, that those separate articles are too extensive and some of the information are somewhat trivial, also sets a bad presisent. Note that most of the keeps and the deletes both have no valid reason for keeping or deleting the article. Secret account 20:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply: It seems the overarching theme presented in the negative comments posted here, including comments by Secret and Pavel Vozenilek, is that any one given ethnicity in any one given city is not notable enough to warrant an article on WP. However, as I've already pointed out, the basic criteria for the notability of people is "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." The case of All of the articles included in this AfD meet that basic criteria. The question of the original AfD proposer about whether the articles fit WP:SNOW was answered by TenPoundHammer when they remarked that "Snowball usually refers to AfDs where the consensus is glaringly obvious." All that said, is there really a substantive conversation left to have here, or are we now going to argue the validity of WP guidelines? • Freechild'sup? 21:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not a good resource for the current trivia on Wikipedia. I admit that I am more of a purist. Wikipedia seems to straddle being an encyclopedia and People's trivia book. I would not support having articles on all the characters of movies, cartoons, etc. To me, they are all trivia and they cater to the tastes of our rather mentally transient society; from an academic perspective I see no value in them whatsoever.
In the context of these articles, the city is what is of most value; breaking the parts down tares the fabric of the whole, making each less than what it was. I think you think that having individual articles somehow aggrandizes each part of the community; I simply reject the premise and I think the whole is greater than the parts. There is not a right or wrong here, just a difference of what is of value and how best to help readers. --Storm Rider (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, Storm Rider - its useful to know where you're coming from. I don't agree with it, but its useful to know. Encyclopedia are inherently about minutiae; that's the nature of knowledge distribution, that what one person finds particularly valuable the next finds completely inane. WP represents the best and worst of that. In the case of these particular articles, they are the beginning of what may become a grand ethnography project, and for that reason alone I think they add great value to WP as a whole - but of course I'm biased here. • Freechild'sup? 00:39, 3 January 2008 (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.