Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Anglo-Indians

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, consensus is that this is a valid topic for a list, all members of the list are now references. Davewild (talk) 12:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Anglo-Indians

List of Anglo-Indians (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Completely unreferenced racial biology-based list. Rejected prod. Includes unreferenced assertions about the ethnicity of living people. John (talk) 04:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong keep. Needs references and improvement, not deletion. Racial lists have numerous precedents (List of African Americans, List of Chinese Americans, List of Welsh Americans, etc). Deleting this would put a hole in our coverage of people by nationality (Lists of people by nationality). If there are unreferenced statements, tag it as such or help by finding some sources, not by nominating it for deletion. The nominating rationale is essentially "It doesn't contain sources". However, there are sources available within the articles for the vast majority of the subject's contents. If you feel the list itself needs to contain them, simply copy them over. I'm not really seeing the deletion rationale here.Celarnor Talk to me 04:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Also, I don't see a nomination for the category. Is there something about the category that makes it better than the list? Celarnor Talk to me 04:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Your assertion above ("there are sources available within the articles for the vast majority of the subject's contents") seems incorrect based on a sampling of the items of the list. If the article was stripped to contain only those names we can reference, I think it would become vanishingly short. Long or short, it is hard to see the benefit in keeping this. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good or a valid keep rationale. --John (talk) 05:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment As I suspected, trimming out the completely unreferenced entries from the list leaves only five, as compared to 27 before. The category will be getting cleaned up too, don't worry. --John (talk) 05:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I have to strongly disagree regarding sourcing concerns. Out of the first eleven, only three don't have clear, obvious sources pop up either on their articles or with a simple gsearch; I didn't even have to go into my subscription databases for these. And no, this isn't OTHERSTUFF. I'm not saying it should be kept because there are similar articles in existence. While that's certainly true, my point is that this would put a hole in our table of contents system covering people by their nationality/race. It doesn't seem particularly fair to cover some nationalities/races and not others; ipso facto, they're inherently equal. In fact, it seems quite the opposite. There's no issues of notability or verifiability with most of the contents. While you may not see the benefit in keeping is, I don't see the benefit in not keeping; it does no harm to BLP subjects (those whom sources can not be found for should be removed from the list and accompanying category, just like any other article), serves as a part of the navigational system and as a human-readable equivalent of the Anglo-Indian category, coalescing subjects based on their nationality/race. In short, this is an ideal LIST. Celarnor Talk to me 06:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The one source I checked of those you provided does not support the ethnicity, it is merely a mention of Engelbert Humperdinck in an article about Anglo-Indians. If they are all as weak as that they are no good for our purposes. Sorry. --John (talk) 06:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I guess we'll just have to part ways, then. There are some print sources, too, judging by the local library's index; ("Under the Shadow of Man-Eaters: The Life and Legend of Jim Corbett of Kumaon", who apparently went on a hunting trip in India, has a chapter on what he terms the "Anglo-Indian exodus", in which he dedicates a few sentences to that particular subject's ethnicity). Celarnor Talk to me 06:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, significantly source, and ensure some useful information is in the list beyond just names. Being Anglo-Indian is a fairly unremarkable designation. --Dhartung | Talk 06:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I've restored the entries of those with sources readily available. I think short summaries are in order for each individual remaining, and I'll see what I can do tomorrow about finding sources for the remaining ones. Celarnor Talk to me 06:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Looks as though the article contain references to support the claims of ethnicity. AfD is not cleanup. -Verdatum (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as an article-worthy list.--Berig (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, redundant to a category. Stifle (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Please have a look at CLN. Redundancy between categories and other navigational mechanisms is not a reason for deletion. Celarnor Talk to me 21:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm well aware of that guideline, and I don't subscribe to it. Stifle (talk) 11:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:18, 30 April 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.