Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 April 10

< April 9	April 11 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dani gecko

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 speedy deleted as G1 (patent nonsense) by Orangemike (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 05:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voidal Symmetry

Personal essay; no ghits except a user page and wikirage. Trovatore (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable original research. Note: author is asserting copyright. Does that make it a speedy candidate? Dawn bard (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've nominated it for speedy. Note that the author says 'under construction', as if this were his personal web page. Wikipedia is not a web host. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 01:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I don't know any speedy-deletion criterion that would apply to the copyright notice specifically, and I don't see why there ought to be one. We each hold copyright on our contributions to WP; we just license that copyright under the GFDL. It's true that a copyright notice is one of the red flags that makes the word "crackpot" fly unassisted into my brain, but that's just a correlation. --Trovatore (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be WP:OR or copyvio, or both because of this SunCreator (talk) 01:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi, I am the author of this page Voidal Symmetry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Thanks for pointing out that I have breached guidlines. You're right in saying it's an original work. However, I believe this is an important discovery and if any one can assist me in properly formulating this I would be most grateful. It is based on the 'Nothing is Something' argument so perhaps references can be included to bring it into line with Wiki policy. As I say - I would welcome any help. A C Thursby-Pelham 02:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment If you have a look here: http://members.iinet.net.au/~andrewtp21/voidal_symmetryBACKUP.html and scroll down a bit you can see how this set of numbers correalates with the numbers in the Book of Revelation exactly. A C Thursby-Pelham 02:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewtp21 (talk • contribs)
- Response A.C., I think you've acted in good faith, but you don't seem to understand the nature of Wikipedia. We're a tertiary source; we don't publish original work. It first has to be published in reliable sources. --Trovatore (talk) 02:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Get it published first. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question What publication/s would Wiki consider valid as publication mediums? A C Thursby-Pelham 02:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewtp21 (talk • contribs)

Comment, valid for Wikipedia is WP:RS 'Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.' and WP:N 'significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject'. SunCreator (talk) 02:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and possible speedy) as G1-ish, non-notable, original research. (And that's not even mentioning the copyright issues). Bfigura ^(talk) 02:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Revert to unvandalized version. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Goldman

Notability - I am unable to find other references to this Michael Goldman, this page seems to suffer from serious notability problems. Nicwright (talk) 01:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nominator. Subject is not at all notable Stanley011 (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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.

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. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of isotopes

This article is useless. There are already articles on the isotopes of each element, as well as table of nuclides. It's unlikely that anyone would actually want to use a list in this form, even if it were completed. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - acts as a directory and an intermediate between articles. it helps a user whilst browsing and to find articles previously difficult to find. it benefits the views of other articles. it has a practical use and application. --Deoxyribonucletic acid (talk) 22:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agree with challenger. Versus22 (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Lists have many purposes, not all obvious, see WP:CLN#Lists. Giving this a keep because nominator has not identified a reason to delete and WP:IDONTLIKEIT#I_don.27t_like_it is not a valid reason. SunCreator (talk) 01:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SunCreator. It may need clean-up though.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 01:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: All it lists is all these different articles. Versus22 (talk) 01:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This could be useful to someone. Per Suncreator's comments.--Adamfinmo (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think it's disputeable that isotopes are notable / important. Moreover, it seems a good candidate for a list, as it's a well defined criteria that isn't likely to hugely expand. Bfigura ^(talk) 02:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is clearly a well-defined list of lists, and to a non-chemist appears somewhat useful. No harm done. Joshdboz (talk) 02:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ as a valid alternate respresentation of Table of nuclides, ~~which links to this list as one of several alternate forms.~~ The formatting here is a bit ... well, stretched out is what comes to mind -- a more compact representation might improve the utility, but that's an editing issue. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Argh -- I got confused by my multiple browser tabs and made an incorrect statement. The Table of nuclides links to Index to isotope pages, not this list. Sorry 'bout that. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Striking my keep while I think about this some more. There's this, there's Index to isotope pages, and there's Isotope lists. The latter two are clearly reasonable alternate layouts -- the question is, is this uncessarily duplicative of them? —Quasirandom (talk) 03:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect to Isotope lists, as much as I dislike using "weak"/"strong" qualifiers. As an index to the same information, I find Isotope lists both more compact and informative, at least in the body; the leads of the various articles, I find somewhat wonky (to use the technical term). That reservation, however, is an editorial matter, and thus while it properly ought not to affect the strength of my recommendation, I find it does. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it could be useful to have the isotope lists kept in this list Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 04:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to table of nuclides, which links to a number of existing representations of this data, including index to isotope pages and table of nuclides (complete). Due to the number of nuclides (isotopes) which exist, this list would be extremely unwieldy if completed in this form; furthermore, individual articles don't exist for most isotopes outside of a couple particularly interesting ones (deuterium and carbon-14, for instance), so continuing to list every isotope in this format is unlikely to provide any benefit over the existing representations. Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As an alternate target, Quasirandom's suggestion of isotope lists also looks good. Same information, again - just displayed a little differently. Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Table of nuclides or isotope lists as outlined above (no preference for either option). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that there's a lot of repetition of material on this subject, but is this the only complete list of lists of isotopes that indexes by name of the element, rather than symbol? It might have utility for people with no background in chemistry who want quick access to a particular list of isotopes and might be put off by the periodic table representations. Also, for several forms of disability and for some output devices, clicking on a periodic table representation might be difficult and a plain text list might be easier to handle. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Check out the lists linked from isotope lists. They're indexed by name and use plain text. Zetawoof_(ζ) 19:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I had seen those, but they don't include all elements on a single page, and you need to know the approximate atomic number to find the correct subpage. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect: The list has existed for 3 years and still has only a few elements with any isotopes listed. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 19:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was expecting better than this. What the author calls "Hydrogen-2" and "Hydrogen-3", the rest of us call deuterium and tritium. (Hydrogen-1, of course, is known as hydrogen). A topic that should be in an encyclopedia, but an incredibly useless list. The redirect would be a good idea, since it would take one to something readable. Mandsford (talk) 19:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but completely rewrite. I have made a draft at User:PrimeHunter/sandbox2. It is based on List of elements by atomic number. I didn't use anything from the existing List of isotopes. The isotopes column lists all isotopes which currently have their own article with a name of form "Elementname-number", for example Carbon-14. This may not be the most common or notable isotopes. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PrimeHunter's proposed revision looks good. As noted, it's an encyclopedic topic, and it needs an encyclopedic type of article. Mandsford (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and replace page wither version provided by PrimeHunter. (Nice work.) Keep per navigational abilities per WP:LIST and WP:SAL. Earthdirt (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the revised version. It is very useful to have a list of isotopes that are notable enough to have their own article--something that the chart of the nuclides can't provide. --Itub (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and replace with Primehunter's version. Bm gub (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Topic is fully encyclopedic without question. --Blechnic (talk) 00:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly. But it's also already covered in a number of other lists - the question at hand is whether we need this one. Zetawoof_(ζ) 02:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - A table of nuclides, those, is generally written in a different way. If it is exactly the same as this one, written as a list, then it is the problem article, not this one. I will look at it, though, to see if this is the point of this AfD. There are enough chemists on Wikipedia who understand the difference though (I assume by the excellent detail in many of the chemical articles) that it's unlikely any will vote for doing this any way other than the standard, a nuclide table, and a list of isotopes remaining the two different things. --Blechnic (talk) 03:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment No, it looks like the table of nuclides is a table of nuclides, while this is a list of isotopes. The user with the sandbox should just put his version of this list, up, though, as it is more useful. They are not quite the same thing, although they may look to be identical due to the type of information they contain, they're used differently. --Blechnic (talk) 03:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment I have copied my sandbox version to the list. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you, that's much more usable. Although the prior author(s) was well-intended for attempting a list of this nature, and it's not straight-forward how to make things useful on Wikipedia. --Blechnic (talk) 05:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A useful method of accessing isotope articles. The Table of nuclides (complete) is very inconvenient to use for many purposes, and the individual element isotope lists are not appropriate for some methods of approach to the subject. This list is a suitable alternative. -R. S. Shaw (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this list of isotopes is incomplete. Just take a look at the complete list of all isotopes published each and every year by CRC Press - and it will take one hundred pages to publish it here. This one is a list of selected isotopes and should be named so, with an explanation in the title why these specific isotopes were selected at the first place, something like "Basic elements and its best known radioactive isotopes". greg park avenue (talk) 19:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. As I wrote earlier, the current selection is simply those isotopes which currently have their own article. I primarily view the list as a way to navigate our isotope articles and not as a claim about which isotopes are best known or most notable. I didn't make the isotope articles and don't know how they were selected (without investigating, my guess would be that different editors just created them when they had time and thought an isotope seemed notable). The lead says the links are to isotopes with their own article. I didn't want to claim on the page that all isotope articles were listed, because new articles may be created without updating the list at the same time. (Existing articles may be deleted or redirected but that is more rare and deletions would immediately stand out as red.) PrimeHunter (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong keep~~ → Weak keep then, if this is the best deal we can make it to show the CRC table without duplicating it - over one hundred pages in small print. If the links to the existing lists of elements/isotopes for any listed in Wikipedia element are provided, and I checked few ones, they are, there would be no better deal in town for now. Don't confuse it with the Table of nuclides - that table is only a graph showing the main idea of the statistics - atomic/mass number ratio but nothing else. And if someone will look for any particular isotope, but did not know which element to look for, this list will do it. greg park avenue (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, the closest thing to the CRC's table is our isotope lists, not this. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 02:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Yes, of course you're right. Why did you not say that in the first place when nominating this article with AfD? Maybe merging this article with the Table of nuclides, which you support I gather, and moving both to the new name Table of isotopes, which name already exists and is redirected to it, would be more appropriate than the deletion? Sounds like an idea, no? greg park avenue (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 speedy keep given absence of delete preferences and effective withdrawal of the nomination (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 00:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Gro Horticulture Income Fund

Possible advert created by company employee. Creator is at least honest about this possible conflict of interest. Originally tagged for speedy when it consisted of mostly links, but now I'm less sure. Google does provide some evidence to support the 'leading producer' claim BrucePodger (talk) 00:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I once read something, perhaps just an opinion, that any company listed on a major exchange such as the TSX should be considered notable. Any foundation to that? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a poorly-written article, but that's what tags are for. The fact that there's a newspaper source reporting that the company was bought for £120 million is something in itself. PeterSymonds | talk 11:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, third-party coverage and large price-tag would seem to indicate notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Actually, keep. Its improving and the creator seems to be doing a reasonable job of not just producing an advert. --BrucePodger (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 delete. Wizardman 19:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mata Nui (Great Spirit)

Fails WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:N Rk OR To N 00:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Topic seems real. [1] UNusual that nominator close the Afd himself/herself within 5 minutes of creation of Afd. SunCreator (talk) 01:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I undid the closure of this AfD, given the above user's comment (placed after closure) and the {{hangon}} tag placed on the page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I closed it because I thought it was a speedy, and it still should be, this article is very poorly written, no links to articles, no sources, no refs, no nothing. It fails the above of WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:N. Rk OR To N 02:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete has barely any content on it, just one sentence. ~ Lego K^ontribs T^alkM 02:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Obviously, TPH was correct with what he did. Closing your own nomination as delete is grossly inappropriate, especially as a speedy. sources [2] exist, but only just barely. Not quite notable. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Search for 'Mata Nui' the wording Great Spirit is the English translation of the original. Not sure of original language Polynesian perhaps. SunCreator (talk) 02:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Seems to be Maori Item in Guardian newspaper vaguely about it SunCreator (talk) 03:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable element of a fictional work. A redirect to Bionicle may be appropriate. Terraxos (talk) 05:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Topic seems real, and there are a couple of items to show notability, but the notability is weak at best. There's not enough context in this article for me to vote keep. PeterSymonds | talk 11:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, does not appear to be a significant entity or concept in Polynesian mythology. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Don't be so harsh, it's just getting up and started. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have re-written it to fit in the proper context of the Bionicle line of Lego toys, and the accompanying books. The other parts of this storyline are well represented and well written elsewhere in Wikipedia.--Benmoreassynt (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or change to redirect page- Terraxos is right, google pulls up Bionicle, so this should probably just redirect there. Otherwise, delete; it's simply a non-notable element of a work of fiction, as stated above. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 16:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and WP:N. Victor Lopes (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm afraid this fictional character character is not significant enough, or cited enough, to be notable.-- danntm ^T _C 22:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. The Bionicle franchise has caused quite a sensation and has a large cult following. The character Mata Nui is one of the most important characters in the Bionicle storyline and therefore warrants an article. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute travesty. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Centurion (novel)

PROD'ed, does not assert notability. Shawnc (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't assert notability in any way; hasn't received significant third-party coverage (Amazon doesn't count). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - totally non-notable new book, does not assert notability, no reliable sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom Beidabaozi (talk) 05:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Orangemike. Unknown User (talk) 10:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable book. Just because a book is published it doesn't automatically give it notability. PeterSymonds | talk 11:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable book. Attempted to G-search, but all that came up was various booksellers and press releases. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, since notability has not been established. --Abrech (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it! Wikipedia is an information site, so just put some information of the novel down and leave the page here. Rigsy05 (talk) 11:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC) — Rigsy05 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Notification - Rigsy05 typed in a description which he/she claims was a direct (copyvio) transcription of the cover blurb, and removed the AfD notice; when CobaltBlueTony called him/her on it, Tony was told to "sod off." I've rolled back everything Rigsy did (which included changing the author and publisher names, incidentally; maybe it was a different book with the same title?) --Orange Mike | Talk 13:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can we clear out the related articles Macro (protagonist), The Eagle's Conquest, When the Eagle Hunts and Under the Eagle while we're at it? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope - those relate to Centurion (Scarrow novel), a different book altogether (and the source of Rigsy's confusing intervention here). If you want to prod or AfD the Scarrow stuff, that's your business. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of multiracial Americans

Unsourced, possibly OR, extremely broad inclusion criteria, and works better as a system of categories, which we I believe we already have. Mr.Z-man 00:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are various reasons why lists are more suitable then categories, see WP:CLN#Lists. Also could NOT locate any exist category. Category:Afro-Asian_Americans don't exist for example.

I can't find anything that is WP:OR, I imagine that you referring to the 'Father's Ethnic Heritage' or the 'Mothers's Ethnic Heritage'. Each person I checked it made it clear on the persons biography. So at a lost to understand what part of it is WP:OR. Even if some of it is WP:OR that part can just be removed so not an issue for Afd. SunCreator (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Considering a large percentage of the population is not of a single ethnic/racial group, wouldn't a list like this be impractically long? Joshdboz (talk) 02:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Delete List is far to wide, and "multiracial" is far too undefined a term - it basically defines everyone. Joshdboz (talk) 12:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It wouldn't be everyone but those that are notable. But yes, it could end up a long list. If it got longer it would eventually be split into sections, by type and then most likely alphabetically. So it's not really a concern from that point of view. SunCreator (talk) 03:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Overtly racist OR/synthesis without any sources. When you have people like Rae Dawn Chong, who is described as a mix of Chinese, Scots Irish, Cherokee and Black Canadian, sensible classification breaks down and becomes quite subjective. We don't want to be arguing whether someone is an octoroon and whether this list should therefore include them. Or whether the offspring of Jews and Gentiles are multiracial. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I disagree with some of the delete reasons, it is simply an unmaintainable list. It would be like a List of people who wear glasses Random 89 08:51, 10 April 2008

(UTC)

Keep. Notable, verifiable facts. --Firefly322 (talk) 10:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Random. 86.44.28.245 (talk) 11:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Random, simply too wide a scope. Inclusion criteria are very fuzzy (would a Scottish/Irish person count?) Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Random and Colonel Warden. Extremely broad scope, vaguely defined considering the various definitions of 'race' (although I guess this would use US definitions), and could become huge and very crufty especially given the melting pot of the United States.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. List itself may be relevant. But it simply can't be handled. Probably the number of entries should have four digits. Who shall manage this? And can it ever be reliable? No. --Abrech (talk) 12:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Random; too wide of a scope indeed, and possibly fuzzy guidelines (just how distinct is "race"?). Better served as a category. (That, and they left out Neal McCoy, who's Irish/Filipino.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful delete If this had really been a list of multiracial Americans, it would have been a worthwhile topic. We live in a society where Barack Obama is thought of as being "black", but never referred to as "white", even with an equal heritage from those two races. Author's mistake was not only to label Mom and Dad, but to label them based on "ethnic heritage" rather than as white, black, Asian, etc.; an inconsistent application of PC then followed ("Luo of Kenya", e.g.) and this is actually a list of multiethnic Americans. And since most Americans can trace their ancestry to several different ethnic groups, we're all "multiethnic" to some extent, even if we aren't of mixed race. As the old saying goes, when you try to please everyone, you end up pleasing no-one. Mandsford (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One practical solution would be to redirect to List of pureblooded Americans and add a footnote saying that every American not on that list should be considered multiracial; another would be to accept that the inclusion criterion is far too vague and Delete. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a perfect example of an unmanagable list. As Mansford points out, multiracial is a pretty loose label. Bfigura ^(talk) 01:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Loosely defined list scope, difficult to manage, bound to be virtually endless. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 01:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a meaningless concept unless you believe in the myth of racial purity. If you go back far enough in the family tree all Americans (and all people of other nationalities) are multiracial. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The scope of this list is too ill-defined to make is manageable, and it add little to the encyclopedia.-- danntm ^T _C 22:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Undefined inclusion criteria, indiscriminate collection of information, and possible WP:BLP violations. Race is largely a social construct, and self-identity is a big part of that construct. Is someone who is half-white and half-black multiracial, or are they black? Some would say the former, while many would say the latter (especially in the US, cultural heir to the old "one drop" rule). Also, everyone is multiracial to some extent. How much Native American/European/African/Asian/etc. heritage must one have to be consdered multiracial? Once someone "passes" as white, are they any longer multi-racial? Making a determination that someone is multiracial largely depends on one's point of view, and such determination as made in this list constitutes original research, and may very well be contrary to someone's self-identity. I think a list of multi-racial Americans might be appropriate if it is rooted in a reliably-sourced definition, gives due regard to self-identity, and substantiates why each person's multi-racial identity is notable. None of this is the case with the article in its current form. Nick Graves (talk) 03:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.