Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bahamian Americans

List of Bahamian Americans

Listed separately (as Caribbean nations) for same reasons given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of English Americans (2nd nomination). and especially Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Belgian Americans seeing as these are more nationality-nationality intersections than nationality-ethnicity intersections. Bulldog123 04:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I fail to see any sort of notability for these intersections by race/nationality Corpx 18:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom links and as trivial listcruft. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete all this is what categories are for---^DarkTea© 22:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Mad Jack 21:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep all - encyclopedic and needed for our users. Contribute constructively, not destructively, to our project, and do not WP:POINT disruptively propose this article for deletion again, thanks. I see that the "delete page regulars" have made their appearance, but they shall not destroy valuable content in such an arbitrary manner. Badagnani 03:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if indeed categories cover the same content, what's the added value of lists? Chensiyuan 04:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look through a few. You'll see they are footnoted, are broken down by occupation, and often contain additional information that cannot be transmitted in the form of a category. Badagnani 04:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Sorry to keep asking questions, but I want to make an informed decision -- surely the test for keep must go beyond usefulness? What is the real test (apart from showing me a WP policy link) -- thanks. Chensiyuan 12:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity-occupation intersections are usually considered trivial overcategorizations. There is no further information in these lists. Bulldog123 08:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More accurately, you should say "Ethnicity-occupation intersections are usually considered trivial overcategorizations in my opinion, and in the opinion of my friends, the 'delete-page regulars'." Badagnani 08:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would keep these categories, as they are very useful for anyone who is interested in studying diasporas.Freedomwarrior 06:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are keeping the categories. Bulldog123 08:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who is this "we" you're referring to and what makes you the arbiter of what "we" will keep or delete? We do not forget that you are personally responsible for the very damaging deletion (and failure to upmerge) dozens, if not hundreds of valuable categories. A little more humility, and a little less presumptuousness, on your part is in order. Badagnani 08:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep for List of Cuban Americans - they are group with a strong community, many of whom do self-define in this manner, and who are linked by their common background. -- Beardo 06:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Freedomwarrior. Pia 07:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List of Cuban Americans their achievements make this self evident El Jigue 208.65.188.149 15:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First of all, there is no consensus that lists by nationality, ethnicity, or race should be deleted, except perhaps among a number of AfD regulars who do not represent the consensus of Wikipedia editors; nor is there any policy against them. Second of all, America, being a nation largely of immigrants and their descendants, has an extensive history of people who consider their ethnicity or national origin highly significant, and not a "trivial overcategorization". Thirdly, while this argument apparently won't sway the nominator, Bahamian American, Jamaican American, and especially Cuban American are all notable categories of people (and Wikipedia categories as well), many of whom do consider their ethnic or national background extremely important. DHowell 02:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all ethnic groups are notable, and this includes "hypenated-Americans"; the definition is possible because it can be self-identification without use having to worry about whether true or false--we're about V, not truth, as I recall; people placing themselves in an ethic group are a close relationship--not as close a biological parentage, but perhaps as close as geography or college attended; lists like these serve a useful function, and so on, as discussed at all the other Afds. I would say that every individual one of them being proposed for deletion here so far is justified and keepable, even the smaller ones like this. Usefulness is a valid reason for lists. DGG (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the justifications for keep provided above outweigh those for delete. Chensiyuan 01:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A notable notion. Classification not POV. `'Míkka 01:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per DHowell. HeyNow10029 02:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]