Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of Irish-Americans

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 of the nomination was keep. – Avi 15:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

also including List of Irish-American actors, List of Irish American gangsters, List of Irish American musicians, List of Irish American politicians.

Merge all to Irish American including only those who are actually partly famous for being Irish-American like Gene Kelly, Ted Kennedy, Tyrone Power, Ronald Reagan. Lists of anyone and everyone who've said "I'm Irish" on St. Patrick's Day are not encyclopedic IMO. Arniep 20:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• do not delete leave as is. Certainly do not merge with 'Irish American' article. Few or no 'xxx American' articles include a name list. The names are all found in 'list of xxx American' articles which is what these articles are for. I created these sub-articles after proposing it on the main 'List of Irish Americans' article and receiving no opposition and one support. Why: the List of Irish Americans' article was getting too long and hard to maintain. As far as the contents of the list, the argument provided is irrelevant to the question. It is up to editors to determine who should be in the list or not, based on facts. Thanks Hmains 20:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(above moved from the AfD's talk page)

• Delete these and all other "lists of foos". They can never be comprehensive and it's a bitter fight to get them anywhere near compliant with our policies. Most importantly, it's hard to imagine a reader thinking "oh, maybe if I search under 'list of Irish-American gangsters', something will come up". I think the "what will the reader expect?" test is a good one for articles. Categories were invented for precisely the purpose these lists purportedly serve. However, this is another case in which I do not expect anything resembling common sense to prevail. Far too many people "contribute" to Wikipedia by adding names to lists and once more mob rule will likely win the day. Grace Note 00:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- if we don't need "list of Jewish whatever" we don't need this either. A category would be sufficient anyway. Haikupoet 02:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I second Grace Note's comments. --Rbraunwa 02:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - not sure what to think. However, I believe, there is one list that now fully complies with Wiki's policies, and that is List of Welsh Americans. Every name is fully sourced to something that says the person in question is a Welsh-American. I plan on doing these once a day, alphabetically up from Welsh. So, Vietnamese - watch out - you're next. Mad Jack 02:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is a List of Jewish American politicians. Since Irish-Americans are a much more prominent part of American politics, this list should stay. This list could use a new format though. It also doesn't list many politicians. It could be divided up into different categories and include many more Irish American politicians with wikipedia pages that are in the Irish-American politician category, but not on the List of Irish-American page. 75.3.49.50

03:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

'Do Not Delete the list' - this list does have value to researchers - Irish American studies as with other ethnic groups is common among sociologists , geneologists and other individuals who are carrying out various research projects at different levels. The Irish were the first great wave of immigration and it is important that a preliminary data-base of notable people is available. However I do beleive that only "sourced" entries should remain on the list - I take the point that it is possible for an individual to talk about their Irish ancestry yet there may be no "source available on the net - but the source can be a book or other material as long as the details are noted/cited. This list like all wikipedia lists and articles is subject to vandalism, silly and un-substantiated entries but as with all articles and lists is also subject to policing and these entries ultimately are corrected or removed. This list is valuable to other Irish studies including historic events such as the Irish Diaspora and The Irish Fammine. It should not be removed. If teh debate is over the name of the list - I really do not care if it is called "List of Irish Americans" or "List of Irish Americans or Americans of Irish Descent". The list is an excellent first level for research - particulalry around St Patrick's Day that is celebrated World-wide and as such generates numerous articles about "Irish Americans" "Irish Culture" "Famine Descendents" "Irish Actors and muscians" - The Irish hold a unique place in the world in that there is no corner of the world where they did not go and it is also unique that this identity can remain strong after many generations - as stated previously in Ireland many visitors arrive to trace their roots from several generations ago. In talked about in previous discussions on the article talk page, people world-wide but particularly in America can have an Italian, Polish, German, Spanish etc. etc. surname yet claim to be or feel Irish because of a close or remote ancestral connection and this is not only unique but has been acceptable to the Irish who experienced the first "ethnic" cleansing at the hands of a colonial government who did their best to wipe out "Irishness" but rather by doing so only enforced it. Therefore the Irish traditionally held on to their identity as something very precious and whether it is 1 or 10 generations in the past it is as valid to them. The Irish Government has also acknowledged the irish connectiosn throughout the world and has made numrous references to it and the waves of Irish that were forced to leave their country due to opression is as important to the Irish and to world history as is the Holocaust. The list should not be removed. Vono 17:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC) 86.12.253.32 07:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep These lists are useful. Anyone who has an article on Wikipedia, or should do, and is eligible for a given list should be included. Lists are better than categories, because they can be annotated and can have redlinks for people who should have articles but don't yet. And categories have exactly the same problems as lists regarding comprehensiveness and adherence to policy.--Newport 11:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm torn, leaning Weak keep. Obviously, we CANNOT delete just one of these lists by ethnicity - it needs to be an all or nothing proposition. Lists on Wikipedia are useful if they either (a) provide meaningful information that you can't get out of a category (eg a table like this) or (b) include redlinked elements to assist in the creation of articles. This list contains really only a citation ... so there is no added value from that standpoint for having a list vs a category - the citation could just as easily be in the article itself. It contains very few redlinks ... and really, in the time you take to add someone to the list, you could create a stub for them. So I don't know that these lists really serve any good purpose that couldn't be accomplished by a category. However, because it would be wholly inappropriate to delete them piecemeal, keep. BigDT 13:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the problem is it is just not clear what can be considered a reliable, reputable, verifiable source that a person is an Irish-American. If someone makes a list and puts it on the net is that a reliable source? If someone says "I'm Irish" on St. Patrick's Day is that a reliable verifiable source that that person is an Irish American? If someone says "I am proud of my Irish heritage" is that? If someone says "I have Irish blood running through my veins" is that? What about "My heart is in Ireland" or "I feel as Irish as can be" or "I consider my Irish heritage a fundemental part of who I am"? All these statements would suggest to me that these people consider themselves Irish Americans, but some people think that only if they say "I'm Irish" on St. Patrick's Day that is enough or some people think only if they say specifically "I am an Irish-American" or are described by someone as exactly that in a reputable reliable verifiable source (what is a reliable source for who and who is not an Irish American again?). Arniep 13:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arniep, this has been explained to you by several editors who are very familiar with policy. You either have a source saying someone is an Irish-American, or you don't. See List of Welsh Americans for how these lists need to be done. Don't worry, Arnie, "I" isn't too far up from "W" in the alpha-bet and I will get to doing this list in no time. Mad Jack 16:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please go to Talk:List of Irish American politicians to see a different kind of format for the List of Irish-American politicians. Also note that you guys are saying what is a reliable source for Irish-American. Most people in the Irish-American politician category are of only Irish ancestry with a few exceptions. 75.3.49.50 14:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - these lists serve an important function, and you can't just delete one while leaving others such as "List of Jamaican Americans" and "List of Cambodian Americans" - Nesher 14:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete - Agreed that this list cannot be deleted in isolation - I for one am not concerned with what the verifiable source is other than that somewhere it should be on record that this person has been identified as Irish American either by their own statements or that of others whether it is only on St Patrick's Day or or through continuous identification is irrelevant - most well known historic figures or celebrities have family ancestry included in their biographies. The list provides that initial starting point that is key for research allowing the researcher to make the determination if tehy wish to pursue further detail and also it serves to encourage stubs and articles. I think that identity is a very personal thing and open to individual interpretation which is why there needs to be a minimum requirement for inclusion otherwise names are simply added because they "sound" Irish or maliciously to vandalise the list for some personal agenda also names can be removed for personal agendas - for instance say Robert De Niro or Liza Minnelli - both have documentable Irish ancestry and both have spoken about it in some form over their long careers, yet someone uninformed may determine that because their names are Italian in origin they do not belong on the list of Irish Americans or similarly that because of irish ancestry do not belong on a list of Italian Americans (of course they belong on both) or it could be that individuals are simply "portective" of their celebrity and want exclusive ownership by their (the editor's) chosen ethnic identity. Reliable citations avoid this for accuracy and research.Vono 17:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge (see above)- seems a reasonable list entry with substantial content, also agree that other similar lists would have to be deleted if this one was. EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 15:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I find lists like this useful.--Runcorn 19:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If these lists are going to continue to exist, should people such as Maurice Costello be excluded, because I cannot find a source that says specifically that he was an "Irish-American"? He was born to Irish immigrants Thomas Costello and Ellen Fitzgerald in 1877. Yet, I have searched far and wide on Google and I can find no source that says he was specifically an "Irish-American", and, according to some users, this means that he cannot go on the list of Irish-Americans. Arniep 23:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe he didn't consider himself Irish-American. If you dig a little deeper, you can find a few sites that say he was part Spanish. Though those may be incorrect. I am not sure. Mad Jack 23:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, this case is a perfect example of why I am arguing against this list as it stands. He is surely a lot more Irish than a large amount of people currently on the lists of Irish Americans for making some vague statement about Irishness. Would I be permitted to use Maurice Costello as an example of an American who traces their ancestry to Ireland on the Irish American page but not on the Lists of Irish-Americans? Clearly a non sensical situation. Something needs to give. Arniep 23:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, nothing needs to give. You have given no evidence at all that we are "stealing away" Costello's right to be Irish-American. You have no evidence that he considered himself as such, and you can find, so far, no sources that have referred to him as such. If you do, that would be great. Until then, he should be kept off the list. Oh, and I suppose you could say "Costello traces his ancestry to Ireland" on Costello's page and on the Irish American pages, though that would be pointless. Surely some more prominant Irish-Americans can be found to illustrate the main page. No need to use Costello, who we are not even sure about. Mad Jack 23:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK fine. Just so it is clear to everyone who wants to keep these lists, we are including people who say "I am Irish" on St Patrick's Day, but excluding the children of Irish immigrants if we can't find a source that says specifically that they are an "Irish-American". Arniep 23:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is this St. Patrick's Day thing? I don't think there's a single person sourced to a link where they say "I'm Irish" on St. Patrick's Day (i.e. an article dated on St. Patrick's Day - you get the point). I am also not sure why you are once again inquiring on this, since it's been explained to you so many times, dating even back to the List of British Jews. Mad Jack 23:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People often say "I am Irish" on St. Patrick's Day when they're drunk, but, according to you, that would be a sufficient source to put someone on the lists. But NO!! Not a source that actually says someone was the child of Irish immigrants. NO NO NO NO!!! Arniep 00:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For goodness sake, do you think we have cameras trained on every celebrity so we can catch their drunken ramblings on St. Patrick's Day? Honestly, Arnie, if you want to use the "St. Patrick's Day" argument, you're going to have to find a single source linked to here that is even vaguely like that. Mad Jack 00:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whether anyone actually is sourced as speaking on St. Patrick's Day. The fact is, if someone is reported as saying "I am Irish" on St. Patrick's Day you will accept that. But not "I am of Irish ancestry" or "I have Irish blood" which probably mean exactly the same thing in that context. And not if we have a source saying a person was the son of Irish immigrantS. NO NO. Even though all those sources accord with the definition of Irish American as an American who traces their ancestry to Ireland. Arniep 00:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just like the fact that the definition of plagarism matches your opinion that Jones did not commmit it, but yet.... if no sources say that he didn't, you're not allowed to under Wiki policy. Specifically. So I ask you, politely, to stop mentioning this "Defintion", which, besides being ambigious and essentially meaning that there are no non-X Americans out there at all, is explicitly prohibited from being used to match a person to a term, because it is indeed a definition. I also beg you to stop using the St. Patrick's Day "argument", because, as you have been unable to find a single example like that, is moot. Mad Jack 00:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's in no way moot. If a person says "I'm Irish" you have decided you will accept that to put them on the list, but not if they say "both of their parents are Irish", or "I am proud of my Irish heritage", all of which are convey the same meaning that the person is an Irish-American in accordance with the definition in major reference works (including Wikipedia) which define an Irish-American as an American who traces their ancestry to Ireland. I want to make it clear that I am in no way arguing for people of distant Irish ancestry who have never muttered one word on their Irish forebear/s to be included, just that we use some common sense and if necessary invoke WP:IGNORE if some users believe that policy may prevent, for example someone of two Irish parents not to be included. Arniep 10:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, arniep, I can't really say to you much more than has already been said, dating back to the List of British Jews. If you have questions/concerns, you can discuss each name with me individually, though right now only on Welsh Americans and Vietnamese Americans - I take no responsibility for any other pages at this point. I'm doing one a day, so I should get to the Irish one this month. Oh, and as for two Irish parents, it's already been explained to you, by Jayjg I think, what if that person just considers themselves "American"? Mad Jack 15:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not very good arguments all round, but the keep ones seem better. And John Fitzgerald Kennedy, an Irish American if there ever was one, once said 'Ich bin ein Berliner'; can he go on the list of German Americans?--Brownlee 11:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but you'd have to use common sense to realise that would not be appropriate! Sorry! Arniep 11:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep --BrenDJ 19:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep until there is an overall consensus guideline on lists of ethnic Americans generally. I do think there's a huge difference between Irish-Americans who immigrated from Ireland, Irish-Americans who are children or perhaps grandchildren of immigrants who grew up in a household strongly informed by Irish cutlture, and Irish-Americans whose ancestors happen to have come from Ireland but who have no strong inbred connection to Irish culture. I would prefer to see the latter types not included in these lists. However, its a continuum, so that's difficult. Herostratus 00:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's pretty easy. If the source said they are Irish-Americans, they can be on the list. If not, not. You'll find that for the most part the latter types are indeed the ones referred to as such. Mad Jack 02:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mad - jack yes referring to the latter group mentioned in the penultimate entry above I agree that quite often the fact that an individual has remote Irish ancesrty does not always qualify them for inclusion in that perhaps they do not feel "Irish" However it is also possible for someone to have remote Irish Ancestry (I consider remote 1 great great gandparent on ones side of teh family) and still feel Irish because that identity was preserved within their environment therefore it is difficult to exclude them - I think at the very minimum there should be verifiable evidnece that somone in their ancestral heritage came from Ireland. An example of this is Mohammed Ali - one great grandfather came from Ennis County Clare - does this make him Irish-American? - Superficiously - yes - but does he feel Irish? I don't think so but because of clear lineage he should be on the list. Researchers can determine what entries they wish to pursue - quite often it is those latter people who are the more interesting because their Irishness may not be common knowledge and much of the value these entries have to for instance; journalists or academics doing serious work to use as examples of how the Irish have succeeded in America so someone like Ali presents a more interesting or unique slant around issues such as the Irish Diaspora rather than extolling the virtues of Irish beauty, charm, wit etc etc that often permiate St Patrick's Day journalism we all Know that Maureen O'Hara, Bing Crosby, Judy Garland, Grace Kelly etc etc were Irish Americans and reading it over and over in numerous publications can become boring but the wider issue for the users of thsi list is to lay-out how this remote Irishness has influenced the person's success that is more of a challenge and ultimately more interesting. Of course as with all these type of lists - they are seen as a "badge of honor" for the entrants and can also contribute to study and analysis - e.g how has their Irishness influenced them? Are their ethnic traits or predisposition responsible for their fame - e.g. Maureen O'Hara was/is as famous for being Irish if not more so than as an actress - infact her Irishness may be more well known than her extensive film career, however the ethnic identity in some cases goes hand-in-hand with the accomplishment for which they are noted and could be a career initself for soem people. I don't think the list is about the subjective issues such as "do they consider themselves Irish everyday or just on St Patrick's day" The reality is that identity is not something that you are conscious of every day and usually needs something to trigger it and St Patrick's Day may be the trigger that some people need once a year to remind them - others may be triggered more often and by other stimulants such as a trip to Ireland, or an image, a memory, a song etc but for the most part Irish-American identity is not challenged if the individual can at least elaborate on it e.g. they know where in Ireland they originated - in my experience the only Irish Americans not accpted by Irish born people are those that do not know anything about Ireland, Irish history, Irish culture, Irish language etc etc. They are not concerned with how close or remote the actual blood connection is if the individual can demonstrate an affinity founded on real knowledge and mutual understanding and this usually does not occur unless the individual "feels Irish". There is nothing more offensive that an American claiming to be "oirish" that has no idea about what that means.145.229.156.40 11:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes definitely I agree. Some people with remote Irish ancestry feel Irish and refer to themselves as such, or are referred to as such by others, which is perfectly fine for inclusion, and in fact helps weed them out from all the others with the remote ancestry. Mad Jack 15:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all - For lists to be justified they should do something that categories do not; have added value. These lists do. They are mostly fully sourced with additional information. TerriersFan 02:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - As the original creator of the List of Irish-American mobsters (as well as Jewish-American and British mobsters) I was suprised to find the list had been created. I would suggest the article be merged to List of Irish-American mobsters, as the article follows naming convention and is the older of the two list. MadMax 14:10, 10 July 2006 (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.