Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 12

:{{la|Michael Zen}} (restore|[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Michael Zen}} cache]|AfD)

This article on an AVN Award winning porn director was deleted for being "very short with no context", however, I feel the article qualifies as a stub. Epbr123 23:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

::not my field but seems pretty obvious.PORNBIO was just rejected as a standard, but in general this does not appear a valid speedy. for A1 or A7. Content was Michael Zen is a pornographic film director. but the reference was {{cite web | title =Personal Bio Michael Zen | publisher = IAFD.com| url =http://www.iafd.com/person.rme/perfid=MichaelZen/gender=m/Michael-Zen.htm| accessdate = 2007-10-12}} *1996 AVN Award – Best Director (Film) – Blue Movie{{cite web | title =AVN Awards Past Winners | publisher = AVN.com| url = http://www.avnawards.com/index.php?content=pastwinners | accessdate = 2007-10-08}}. DGG (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• I was the deleting admin and do not wish to formally vote. The reason for deletion under CSD A1 is that all the information in the article was already available in the table of winners in AVN Award: the name, the fact that he directed pornographic films, the fact that he won an AVN Award in 1996, and the name of the film that won the award. If the article had added any more detail then it would not be a valid A1 but with just that information, the article is superfluous to the table. Sam Blacketer 08:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• Would Epbr123 be willing to expand the article? That would seem to solve the A1 problem. Chick Bowen 16:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• Indeed it would; if you have information to add I will happily recreate it immediately. Sam Blacketer 17:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• I could add more info, but from your comments it seems the problem with the article was a lack of content, rather than a lack of context. Are you sure there was a valid reason for speedying? I wouldn't want to see any more similar articles deleted. Epbr123 21:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• I can't comment on other articles because they have to be assessed individually. The context comes with the content: I'm sure he did not spring from the womb an adult film director, so how did he get into the field? Is there anything particularly innovative about his direction techniques? Et cetera; as Rawlston says, it isn't enough to tell us what a man did, you've got to tell us who he was. Sam Blacketer 21:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• Those are the kinds of questions I'd expect in an FA review rather than a speedy delete review :) I admit that out of all the stubs on porn stars I've made, this is one of the few that didn't have any personal info. If you would like to undelete the article, I will add a little bit more. Epbr123 09:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• There have been a great number of these one-sentence stubs ("So-and-so won an award") put up by this editor lately. (A truly HUGE number, if you count his stubs on English towns.) In conjunction with the same editor's mass-tagging for deletion of more substantial articles, his actions seem highly questionable. Hence, partly, the RfC which has been brought against him. If this editor would take time to work on these articles first, rather than putting up stubs in the belief that they are safe from deletion on the award-technicality, his contributions would appear to be more valuable. Dekkappai 18:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::Comment: the award for this article seems much more substantial than the more specialized awards justifying many of the other stubs, such as "2005 XRCO UNSUNG SIREN". subject to correction, I wouldn't necessarily consider that last one a plausible claim to notability. As for town stubs, they've always been considered a valuable addition to WP, regardless of motive for writing them. DGG (talk) 21:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:::Sure, the subject is worthy of an article since he won an award. But this stub accomplishes nothing more than a red link at the list of awards. I would even suggest that "2005 XRCO UNSUNG SIREN" provides more new information than this stub did. All I'm suggesting is that the editor do some work on a stub before starting literally thousands of them for others to improve, especially after he's stepped on so many people's toes by mass-AfDing in this same category. Dekkappai 22:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:::Comment To clarify my position, for the record: My opinion on the article conforms to what appears to be consensus so far. I.e., if Epbr123 puts forth a little effort and does some real work on the stub by providing some sourcing and some information-- then by all means, restore it. Dekkappai 23:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:I'lll certainly agree about that. DGG (talk) 08:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse, article had no content. Admin deleted correctly. We are better off with a red link to encourage someone to write some actual content. Most one sentence substubs rightly get speedied. Neil ☎ 10:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• I think editors are more likely to add content to an article that already exists; especially inexperienced ones who would be unsure how to create an article and wouldn't start off by establishing notability (leading to a speedy delete). An article's potential is more important than its current state. PS. the article did have content; it's the duplication of the content, and the context that's being disputed. Epbr123 10:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

:{{la|Enquiring Minds}} (restore|[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Enquiring Minds}} cache]|AfD)

Notable album(s) by notable artist. Also including Both Worlds *69 and Enquiring Minds Vol. 2: The Soap Opera. Deleting admin has not responded to request for restoration. At very worst information should've been merged into Gangsta Boo main article. Exxolon 23:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

::expired PROD, so it can be re-created. DGG (talk) 00:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. I was about to overturn these PRODs when I noticed the articles each consisted only of an infobox and a track listing. If undeleted they should immediately be speedied as A1 (no context) or A3 (no content). It should be noted that Gangsta Boo seems to have notability concerns itself. --Coredesat 00:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion without prejudice to the creation of an actual article (rather than a directory entry) on these topics. Eluchil404 05:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment from deleting admin. As contested prods, I don't have a problem with the recreation of these articles. However, like Coredesat said, on recreation they can and probably should be speedied, making the process rather pointless. Do you have plans and means to expand these articles, using some reliable third party sources, so that notability is established? If so, then there is no problem when you recreate them. Otherwise, keep deleted. Fram 12:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn why is this being debated, PRODs can be challenged and at worse these articles can be changed into redirects. Catchpole 11:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

::This is being debated because another admin has indicated that if overturned, they should be speedied immediately. What's the point of having an undelete / redelete just for the sake of process? Anyway, creating these articles as a redirect to the artist page is a good solution as well, of course. Fram 07:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

:{{la|Tealeaf}} (restore|[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Tealeaf}} cache]|AfD)

CSD SPAM Davidewart 23:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No valid reason was given for this deletion. The content listing was valid, continually edited and even contained competitive links for complete fairness.

• Overturn it was not spam, in that it was clearly different than promotional material a company would provide. Also listed at least one apparently acceptable 3rd party reference. This should have gone to AFD. --W.marsh 00:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - [http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tealeaf not even close] to meeting WP:CSD#G11 or any other CSD. — xDanielx ^T/_C 05:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Neither A7able nor G11able. Joe 07:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• Restore As the guy who deleted the article, I'll just apologise and ask to restore it.--Alasdair 09:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• As the deleting admin, you can go ahead and restore it yourself, at which point this discussion would automatically close as moot. Newyorkbrad 09:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:{{la|Fictional applications of real materials}} (restore|[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Fictional applications of real materials}} cache]|AfD)

I do not think there was any sort of concensus obtained here. The comment by the closer is misleading - not only was there no super-majority, there was not even a simple majority (6-6 by my count). There are serious, good faith, comments on both sides, and active efforts to improve the article during the AfD. The closer felt the delete arguments were stronger, which is certainly a plausible position, but it's far from concensus. LouScheffer 18:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly endorse deletion - While simple vote-counting may show a slim consensus (or none at all, in one case), a comparison of the rationales behind the votes is clear. The closing admin properly weighed the content of the positions and noted that the reasoning behind the keep votes was relatively weak compared with the policies and guidelines mandating deletion. It takes more than one hand to count all the policies and guidelines that are applicable in deleting this listcruft. The arguments as to why we should ignore WP:N, WP:OR, WP:FICTION, and WP:V are unconvincing. /Blaxthos 19:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• Disclosure - I was the editor who made the original nomination for deletion. /Blaxthos 21:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure based on strength of the arguments. Many of the keep arguments amounted to little more than "It's useful", "It's harmless" or "Well organized". Well intentioned comments, but they do not address the concerns of the nominator. The closure here was perfectly reasonable. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

::*2 Comments: First, I though a deletion review was for procedure (was a consensus obtained?) as opposed to content. Second, while there are some bad arguments for keep, there are some very superficial ones for delete, as well. Presumably consensus, if any, should be attained by comparing the good arguments on each side. Throwing out the poor comments, we have Blaxthos, Eric119, sgeureka, Verrai., and the closer Stifle for deletion, and DGG, LouScheffer, Mandsford, Marhawkman, and Emperor for improvement. This does not seem to indicate any concensus. LouScheffer 21:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

:::*Reply - I was unaware that we had selected you (or anyone) to determine who's comments count and who's do not. Did you bother letting the other editors know that their opinions should not be considered? We elevate administrators based on trust, and generally trust them to properly evaluate and close deletions (as was done here). I find it absolutely abhorrent that you have taken it upon yourself to decide whice comments are valid. /Blaxthos 21:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse own deletion. AFD is not a vote. Stifle (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: These are primarily the same people who participated in the AfD. Could people not associated with the AfD read it, and see if they think any concensus was reached? LouScheffer 21:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• Reply - we have as much right to comment at DRV as you do to request a review. /Blaxthos 21:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - I don't see how the closer could have close it any other way. The Keep reasoning was mere fluff, not based in policy, and never overcame the delete reasonings. Comment - How is transparent aluminium (the fictional application of Aluminium) related to chocolate -- Harry Potter's fictional cure for the Dementors depression? There is not one reliable source that discusses the topic of fictional applications of real materials. Compiling one example after another created an indiscriminate collection of information. The closer noted that in the close. -- Jreferee t/c 21:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, article was OR synthesized rubbish, and was rightly deleted. Neil ☎ 22:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure For the record, I didn't participate in the AFD. Most of the keep votes were of the Its Useful/I Like It Style, whereas the delete ones adressed issues such as OR, Synthesis, Verifiability, etc. The Admin interpreted the debate correctly. SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 22:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• Restore It is admitted that there was no consensus to delete; the admin chose the arguments he preferred. The arguments for keep were based in policy The overall subject was admitted to be notable and the material was not OR but in fact sourceable , and sourcing had begun for the individual items to demonstrate it. But this was my argument there, so of course I think it a valid one. A reasonable try at constructing a rather usual article. Perhaps the best solution is to permit recreation in part but with each item fully sourced. DGG (talk) 00:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion based on strength of argument. The article was unsalvageable OR. --Coredesat 00:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. Consensus never has and never will be a vote count. Strength of argument is more important. To quote DGG (most likely out of context, but it works nonetheless), "Fifty people giving foolish reasons do not make consensus." --Kbdank71 00:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, the delete arguments were clearly more based in Wikipedia policy than the keep arguments. --Stormie 05:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, not because I think this was the only possible closure, but because I believe this was within the range of reasonable administrative discretion. It is likely I'd have come up with a different closure of no consensus, but on further consideration this is the right answer. WP:NOR problems aren't overcome when every fact in an article list is sourced; WP:SYN points out that we sometimes need more, as when facts are arranged so as to make a point. The article restricted itself to cases where "the fictional usage is related to the real usage, and this connection is the intended topic of this article". With that clause present, the article violated WP:NOR by being a synthesis to make a point, without it the list would be indiscriminate. The WP:NOR argument was made relatively late in the discussion (I think by Trident13 first) and the clause was introduced because of that argument, but I don't see a viable policy compliant path for this article until someone finds reliable secondary sources on the general phenomenon. GRBerry 21:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

:{{la|Every time you masturbate, God kills a kitten}} (restore|[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Every time you masturbate, God kills a kitten}} cache]|AfD)

This redirect was deleted without a valid reason. It may be a user unfamiliar with the term.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.138.31.76 (talk • contribs)

• Overturn no reason given for deletion... obviously overturn until that changes. But since this was not protected against recreation, DRV wasn't really needed, technically. --W.marsh 18:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

:{{la|List of German Americans}} (restore|[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:List of German Americans}} cache]|AfD)

• Strong Overturn Wow. Looking back at this it's truly amazing. I'd really love to know how the majority of all of the other ethnic American groups survived the last mass deletion effort, but, by and large, the largest contributor was deleted. This is all very unbalanced, socially ignorant and absurd. The "concensus" verdict didn't make much sense, especially with extremely similar pages in existence. -- Alexander Lau 14:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse per excellent reasoning by the closer. The outcome of discussions on similar articles do not have a direct bearing on the outcome of this discussion. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse (my) closure. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is never a good argument. And Alexander's rudeness, both in not bothering to inform me of this discussion as per step #3 in big letters at the top of the DRV page, and his comments here ("unbalanced, ignorant, absurd"), is most unwelcome. Neil ☎ 22:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Right there in the Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations policy, it says List of Jewish musicians is notable. Then there is Lists of American Jews, with its List of Jewish Americans AfD, List of Jewish Americans AfD#2, Lists of American Jews AfD, and Lists of Jewish-Americans AfD. At a minimum, let's form a consensus here to get rid of the sentence

  Whilst some cross-categorizations are notable (for example, List of Jewish musicians), a majority are not.

  from Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. Wikipedia should not show favoritism. -- Jreferee t/c 22:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

:*Comment This is not a cross-categorization. --Dhartung | Talk 23:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

::*People from America organized by ethnic German ancestry. -- Jreferee t/c 00:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:::*Not even close to a cross-categorization. That's the definition of an ethnic group. Cross-categorization would be ethnic group by occupation, for example -- two entirely different buckets. --Dhartung | Talk 20:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse - The closer interpreted the debate correctly and finally may have moved us forward on this issue. We let these lists of Americans get way out of hand. See Lists of Ethnic Americans. AfD is the place to address them. -- Jreferee t/c 00:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• The very page you linked to makes it pretty clear that AfD is not the place to address them, as the results have been haphazard and arbitrary: there is really nothing which distinguishes this particular list, or any of the others which have been deleted, from the many other "List of Americans" which have survived AfD. Also, the that discussion shows an emerging consensus that ethnic group lists should not all be deleted; if anything there were valid arguments that lists based on non-notable ethnic categorizations should be deleted, but I don't believe anyone is arguing that German American is a non-notable ethnic group. DHowell 03:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn reading the close, the closer admitted the cogency of each set of arguments, agreed they were each based in policy, and chose which set he preferred. This is not the role of an admin; the role is to judge the consensus of the reasonable policy based arguments, not weigh different considerations of policy against each other. The community does that. Over-categorization was just one of t he issues discussed--it is not necessarily obvious why this a very broad intersection like this is wrong. Perhaps we need a policy discussion on this, perhaps at not, to establish whether this type of list is permitted , rather than trying to do it by trying to delete them one at a time. DGG (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• If you read the close properly, you'll note I said both sets of arguments were excellent, but most of the keeps were arguing that this was a notable ethnic group - which is probably true, but that wasn't the article under discussion; we have an article on the ethnic group German-Americans, and I don't think anyone would suggest that should be deleted. Few of the "keeps" actually produced good arguments for retaining the list. Do you see? Neil ☎ 12:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• Well, the significance of a list of German Americans is largely a product of the significance of the German American cross-section. The said arguments were not a priori reasons to keep the article, but they do seem relevant. If the concept of a bridge wasn't notable or was only marginally notable, we probably wouldn't have a list of bridges. — xDanielx ^T/_C 20:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• We probably shouldn't have a list of bridges, given we have :Category:Bridges and its many sub-categories, and the state of the List of bridges article. Neil ☎ 10:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• What, in your opinion, would be a valid argument to justify a list on Wikipedia? DHowell 03:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Admins are perfectly free to weigh in with opinions, but opinions go to the bottom of the discussion, not to the top. Consensus for deletion was not given. ~ trialsanderrors 06:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• :As per above, perhaps actually reading the closing statement would help. Most of the opinions about keeping were based on German-American being a notable ethnic group. But the AFD wasn't on German-American, it was on List of German-Americans. Neil ☎ 12:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• ::I read it. It's the typical "I get to decide which argument is valid" admin powergrab that's become so prevalent around here. That you don't understand the rules on spinout lists is just the icing on the cake. ~ trialsanderrors 19:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• :::It wasn't a "powergrab" and I understand the "rules" on spinout lists, thanks. The role of the closing admin is to assess the arguments - if not, we'd have a bot closing AFDs. Yeesh, it's not a difficult concept. Neil ☎ 10:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• Slight overturn - reasonable arguments on both sides. The debate essentially comes down to the significance of a particular cross section in relation to each list member, and as this is really just an issue of different standards for different editors, I think it should be left to (lack of) consensus. — xDanielx ^T/_C 20:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. I think this was an honest but mistaken close. There are bad lists but this one was reasonably well annotated and cited. The closer relied on the "principal argument" that the list documents a loose association, yet it is one that is considered important by society. I'm skeptical of the relevance myself, but we derive our work from secondary sources; if a secondary source can be found that documents a person's ethnicity in this manner, that's sufficient for me. Somebody else made the judgement. --Dhartung | Talk 20:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Certainly Neil's argument above argument is among the plausible ones, but it should have been made in the discussion. If there's a approximately balanced discussion and an admin has an opinion on it, he should add his views to the others, and then someone else can evaluate. I have a definite opinion on it too, but I argued it in the discussion; I would not have closed, and used my own opinion as the reason as if it had more weight than anybody else's. DGG (talk) 21:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• :What argument? You mean where I explained my close? How would that have been an argument to make in the discussion? Did you read the closing statement? Again, yeesh. Neil ☎ 10:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong overturn - Thoroughly sourced and encyclopedic article about the second largest ethnic group in the United States. Previous delete decision was made against consensus, previous DR was similarly closed "delete" against consensus, and current consensus is to keep and improve such articles, if the ethnic group is notable. In this case, the ethnic group is certainly notable. Badagnani 08:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• :Oh, for crying out loud. Nobody has, at any point, suggested the ethnic group was not notable. We have a great article about the ethnic group, at German-Americans. The delete decision was not against consensus, because over half the "keep"s made the exact same (deliberate?) error you, Dhartung, DGG and Trialsanderrors did above - they were, and you are, defending the existence of the German-American article, which was not, never has been, and probably never would be deleted. This is the list. Not article, list. List, not article. Article does not equal list. List does not equal article. List != article. They are not the same thing. You are saying that the ethnic group is notable. Nobody has at any point suggested it is not. In the AFD, most of the "keep"s were based on the ethnic group being notable, and did not address the list of part. Is it so difficult to parse? I really do hope the closing admin here realises that most of the overturns here are (probably deliberately) ignoring the closing statement, ignoring what article this DRV is about, and obfuscating the true discussion in order to get their nice yet wholly unencyclopaedic list back. Neil ☎ 09:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

::I chose my words carefully, so please watch your tone when you imply that another editor doesn't know what he is talking about. My comment was based on evidence, namely: 1) the content of the article before its deletion (against consensus) and 2) the behavior of the deleting admins. It's interesting that you yourself were the admin who upheld the deletion, very much against consensus. As regards this article and the similarly deleted list of Norwegian Americans (and several others), now that these impeccably sourced and annotated articles are gone, since there was no effort to merge the content into the articles you mention, the information about who exactly is of these heritages is absolutely gone. This is a severe problem for our users who come here looking for this information, and a very poorly considered decision. It is not unreasonable to maintain a well-sourced and annotated list of Norwegian Americans (or any other ethnic group notable enough to merit its own article), as many of our users will require such data for their research. Badagnani 20:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong overturn: per consensus here. Leuko 19:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse the problems with this article apply to the others, but results differ. The damned that you didn't (nominate them all together) problem. Is it German citizenship or ethnicity? Or a mish-mash, WP:SYNTHesis of the two? If ethnicity, no one has adequately explained how German you must be to be on the list, why that much German - and not more and not less - is not arbitrary (or WP:OR or WP:SYNTH), what reliable sources tell us that everyone on the list is at least that much German. These lists also fail for another inescapable reason: views of citizenship and ethnicity are of passing validity, fluid, and are fully capable of reinvention. Was Einstein a German-American? Shouldn't we consult the local German laws at the time of his emigration to the US to find this out (as we would with any other person) - then you might be surprised to learn that he wasn't German ethnically or by citizenship under those laws. Is the Queen of England German? (I realize she's not American, so wouldn't be on this list in any event, but inquiring minds want to know where someone of her pedigree ought to fall). What about Jackson Browne? He was born there, to a US serviceman and his American wife. But accident of birth doesn't confer rights in most countries - Germany included - so by German law, he's not German. Again, a morrass. And as I've said why should WP be in the business of classifying people by our view of their ethnicity? Without any real-world implications this seems the height of folly and makes us look more like a racial site than an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 —Preceding comment was added at 21:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

:*Comment - There's no morass. We must be reasonable in everything we do. In Jackson Browne's case, if he has no known German ancestry, and reliable sources do not state that he self-identifies as German American or that others have labeled him as German American, we would not include him in the article. However, as the article would be well sourced and annotated, if it were decided via consensus that he should be included (i.e. if there is a section of that list devoted to Americans who have been born in Germany, whether they are of German ancestry or not--something I personally don't necessarily support), all of what we're discussing about the qualifications for his inclusion would be discussed in the annotation following his name. Badagnani 21:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. I think that it is uncontestable that ethnic Americans are notable groupings. It is also well established policy that it is acceptable to have both a list and a category for members of notable groups. As such, the policy arguments for keeping are quite valid, and were not given due weight by the closing admin. The proper closure of this discussion was "keep" by the strength of the arguments. The article clearly needed a cleanup; not all of the sourcing was reliable, and the inclusion criteria needs to be better defined - but it should not be our definition, it should be the definition of reliable secondary sources. The unreliably sourced material needs to go, and the people who are not themselves identified as a German american need to be cut. Most of the concerns of those opining delete can be addressed by appropriate sourcing. What we want is people who are notable as being a German American, not merely people who are notable and one obscure source, possibly not even a reliable one, has said that they have some German ancestry. I also note that closing admins are wrong to discount "It's useful" arguments in a deletion discussion - we exist to be an encyclopedia, and the "useful" articles are exactly the ones we should have - provided that the use is an encyclopedic use. Deleting useful articles, lists, and categories harms the encyclopedia, and we should always put the encyclopedia first in our considerations. GRBerry 21:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn The closing admin dismisses the keep arguments by saying they justify the German-American article, but not the list. But if the notability of a topic does not justify a corresponding list, what does? He also dismissed the "it's useful" arguments, despite the fact that the very essay which suggests that "it's useful" by itself is a bad argument also says that usefulness can be the basis of a valid argument, and that simply saying "'it's useful' is not a valid argument" is not a valid argument in itself. On the other hand, the delete arguments, for the most part, did nothing more than assert that the list was "loosely associated", or complain about the lack of well-defined inclusion criteria. But there has never been any evidence of a consensus that WP:NOT#DIR was meant to prohibit lists of people belonging to notable ethnic groups. Policy has to be interpreted in light of the consensus supporting it, and not simply based on one's personal opinions about what policy means. And arguments that the inclusion criteria is not well defined ("How German does one have to be to be on the list?") are addressed by better defining the criteria, not by deletion. It is clear from both the AfD and the preceding DRV that there is no consensus to delete lists of people belonging to notable ethnic groups, and per deletion policy, this list should have been kept. DHowell 03:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• overturn and keep these and other such categories that were wrongfully deleted. Hmains 03:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)