Project:Requests for deletion/Requests/2020/Template:European Americans
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The outcome of this request for deletion was to File:Symbol keep vote.svg Keep. This RfD was originally intended for the template only, and no consensus for deletion of the template was achieved. No comment on the other articles linked in the template. Chenzw Talk 13:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Template:European Americans[change]
- Template:European Americans (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request
Eptalon has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Except for the page European Americans, the template seems to be unused. Please note, that I would like to include all sub-pages. There are two problems: First of all, it is possible that for example some Sami emigrated to America. Given that the Sami are a relatively small group, it is unlikely there were many. (Also applies to other groups). Secondly, given that we know that for example Joseph Seligman emigrated (from Germany), a category would probably be better (Americans of German descent, or similar). Also, the large groups can be mentioned in the article, and don't need a template. >What do other people think? Eptalon (talk) 14:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.
Discussion[change]
- File:Symbol comment vote.svg Comment: Note, this is just about the template. Bigger groups of emigrants (German, French, Spanish,Italian, Irish,...) can still be memtioned on the page. --Eptalon (talk) 14:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- File:Symbol delete vote.svg Delete all pages on this template with the "BLANK are Americans of BLANK descent". Just a rewording of the title and are useless. --IWI (talk) 15:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- File:Symbol comment vote.svg Comment: I'd like to add Template:Canadians abroad to this list for a similar reason. --IWI (talk) 17:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- File:Symbol comment vote.svg Comment: Note that these articles give the number of people in that ethnic group, which is useful. Also a few of them are more developed, such as Irish Americans. -Naddruf (talk) 03:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- All pages of this type are useless and should be deleted. As I said once before, all "Americans" came from somewhere, even indigenous people. This page might conceivably include millions of people and be of no use whatsoever. Has no clear criteria, and is not encyclopedic. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- It may be your point of view that ethnicity/heritage is not important, but that doesn't mean the topics are not notable. Many of these articles are well written on English Wikipedia.Naddruf (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- PLease, this is about the template/subtemokates only, not the article itself.--Eptalon (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Eptalon: I thought you meant all the articles. If not, what do you mean by "all sub-pages"? Naddruf (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- The template page, and all pages linked from the template page (for example Scotch-Irish Americans), note that Huguenots is a common term, and not related to emigration to America...)--Eptalon (talk) 23:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Eptalon: I thought you meant all the articles. If not, what do you mean by "all sub-pages"? Naddruf (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- PLease, this is about the template/subtemokates only, not the article itself.--Eptalon (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, I now understand you to mean, not the article "European Americans", but I wasn't talking about. Naddruf (talk) 01:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- It may be your point of view that ethnicity/heritage is not important, but that doesn't mean the topics are not notable. Many of these articles are well written on English Wikipedia.Naddruf (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep these articles, which provide some information: German Americans, Amish, Polish Americans, Armenian Americans, Ukrainian Americans, Swedish Americans, Croatian Americans, Serbian Americans, Italian Americans, Scottish Americans, French Americans, Huguenot, Irish Americans, and Romani Americans. I don't see a good reason to delete these. Delete all other articles. Keep the template but remove red links. Naddruf (talk) 01:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Agree with above also. --IWI (talk) 04:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I go along with that: if we must have these articles, let's keep the templates sane. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Amish and Hugenots should be removed form the template. Reason: Those are religious communities; they reason they emigrated was basically that given the situation in Europe at the time, they were unable to practice their faith. Like most Anabaptists, Amish (and Mennonites, and Hutterites) were from the German-speaking parts of Europe, essentially Germany, and Switzerland. Huguenots were form what was then France. I could be wrong: How many French immigrants are there in the US, that are not Huguenots?- So for any article to be included in the template, I would say we should have at least a sourced number of people, and perhaps 2-3 notable emigrants listed in the article?--Eptalon (talk) 11:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Huguenots are French, but most of them, I think, don't live in America. French Americans is a useful article because it tells people that most are Huguenots. Like you said, Amish and Huguenot can be removed from the template. Naddruf (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Starting 1661 they were persecuted; about 250.000 fled to the mostly Protestant parts of Euorpe (the Netherlands, north of Germany,...), and overseas. How many of them travelled overseas I don't know. Today, between 0.5% and 3% of the French are Protestant. --Eptalon (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Huguenots are French, but most of them, I think, don't live in America. French Americans is a useful article because it tells people that most are Huguenots. Like you said, Amish and Huguenot can be removed from the template. Naddruf (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Amish and Hugenots should be removed form the template. Reason: Those are religious communities; they reason they emigrated was basically that given the situation in Europe at the time, they were unable to practice their faith. Like most Anabaptists, Amish (and Mennonites, and Hutterites) were from the German-speaking parts of Europe, essentially Germany, and Switzerland. Huguenots were form what was then France. I could be wrong: How many French immigrants are there in the US, that are not Huguenots?- So for any article to be included in the template, I would say we should have at least a sourced number of people, and perhaps 2-3 notable emigrants listed in the article?--Eptalon (talk) 11:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- ┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Hugenots again: About 4.800 went to America (1670-1720); Compare that to: 40-50k to Germany, Around 1570: 6-7k to England, 1523: About 40k to Amsterdam, 1544-1648 about 60k Protestants from Wallonia, From 1680: About 50k Hugenots, and 100k Protestants; Swirtzerland: 1687- 28k Hugenot refugees in Geneva (the city had a population of 12k at the time), 23k in Zurich (population: about 10k, timeframe 1683-87); Lausanne and Neuchatel helped the people traversing with money; Hugenots played a big part in establishing Banks, textile production and the arts in Switzerland; A few hundred families to South Africa. So no, most Hugenots didn't go to the US and Canada...--Eptalon (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep as this template is used on a number of pages. I would reiterate that this discussion is for the template only (as none of the article pages are tagged and it is far too late in the discussion to do so). But even if it was for the articles in the template. Notable topics should not be deleted based on state of article per WP:BEFORE. -Djsasso (talk) 03:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Also would note most if not all of the articles on the template have had information added to them since this discussion was created. -Djsasso (talk)
- I don’t think I agree with that. Why wouldn’t we just call it "notability for discussion" if the only purpose of an RFD is to determine notability? Considerations such as What Wikipedia is Not can come into discussion, in this case NOTDICTIONARY. --IWI (talk) 05:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- But it is not a dictionary definition. Quite literally. People like to play loose when stating dicdef as a reason. But none of these articles even before they were expanded were dictionary definitions. None of them were describing the meaning of a word. They were telling you about the subject of the article which is different. -Djsasso (talk) 05:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- "Dutch Americans are Americans of Dutch descent" is a dictionary definition and simply defines the title, not to mention stating the obvious. I’ll remind you that dictionary definitions do not have to apply to single words. In this case, the two words act as one word and can be defined in a dictionary-type way. These articles fit the A2 criteria in my view and it is not helpful when someone decides to make 50 of these in one go. They provide nothing whatsoever to the reader aside from the title defined/reworded. --IWI (talk) 05:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Don't get me wrong I wish they would have made better articles as well. Cleaning up the mess isn't fun. But you are making an assumption that it is stating the obvious. You forget that one of our target audiences is ESL readers which might not have a clue that Dutch Americans means Americans of Dutch descent. There are a few articles on this template that I as a native speaker had no idea what ethnicity they were talking about based solely on the title for example and the sentence told me. But deleting notable topics is pretty much never the answer if it can be avoided. -Djsasso (talk) 05:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- If it were one or two, I would add to them; but it isn’t, it is a large number. As for our target audience, this is an encyclopedia. Such a definition of defining what it means would belong in the Simple English Wiktionary. We have our QD criteria which mostly end up being used on notable topics, with the idea that we shouldn’t be obliged to clean up lots of mess. --IWI (talk) 05:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- An encyclopedia by its very definition will define what a topic is about. Yes, ideally in more than one sentence. But we have a pretty large precedent in leaving single sentence articles on topics that are notable if they have the possibility of being expanded as we generally consider a short article better than no article. -Djsasso (talk) 05:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- If it were one or two, I would add to them; but it isn’t, it is a large number. As for our target audience, this is an encyclopedia. Such a definition of defining what it means would belong in the Simple English Wiktionary. We have our QD criteria which mostly end up being used on notable topics, with the idea that we shouldn’t be obliged to clean up lots of mess. --IWI (talk) 05:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Don't get me wrong I wish they would have made better articles as well. Cleaning up the mess isn't fun. But you are making an assumption that it is stating the obvious. You forget that one of our target audiences is ESL readers which might not have a clue that Dutch Americans means Americans of Dutch descent. There are a few articles on this template that I as a native speaker had no idea what ethnicity they were talking about based solely on the title for example and the sentence told me. But deleting notable topics is pretty much never the answer if it can be avoided. -Djsasso (talk) 05:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- "Dutch Americans are Americans of Dutch descent" is a dictionary definition and simply defines the title, not to mention stating the obvious. I’ll remind you that dictionary definitions do not have to apply to single words. In this case, the two words act as one word and can be defined in a dictionary-type way. These articles fit the A2 criteria in my view and it is not helpful when someone decides to make 50 of these in one go. They provide nothing whatsoever to the reader aside from the title defined/reworded. --IWI (talk) 05:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- File:Symbol comment vote.svg Comment: According to this document (PDF, German), one person each emigrated from Liechtenstein to Chile, Mexico, and Peru; two people each emigrated to Colombia or Venezuela. Even if there may now be societies of people with a Liechtensteinian background in these countries, I do not believe these cases are relevant for an encyclopedia. So, no 'Liechtensteiner Chileans' articles or similar. Single people or small groups of people emigrating, are, in my opinion, encyclopedically not relevant, if all they did is emigrate. Counter-example of this may be the Huguenots who contributted a lot to Swiss Banking, and manufacturing, when they fled to Geneva and Zürich, for example. But then we are not talking about 'small groups', we are talking about several 10.000 people.--Eptalon (talk) 13:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
This request is due to close on 14:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.