- 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. Nomination withdrawn. While I don't agree that this page is useful, or can be made useful, it is clear that I am alone in this view. Moreover, policy does seem to support keeping the article, even if it is not necessarily useful or likely to become useful (and other articles have been pointed out that support this precedent). (non-admin closure) — InsertCleverPhraseHere ( or here) 04:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- List of naturalized American citizens ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't think we need this. The category, "People with acquired American citizenship" fits this role, but any such list is going to be wildly incomplete no matter what we do, or else so long that it would be impossible to have as a standalone article. As it stands, this article is merely a list of naturalized American citizens that wikipedia has articles on, and that have been added to the aforementioned category. — InsertCleverPhraseHere ( or here) 07:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. the general consensus is that lists such as this one are kept to link the articles Wikipedia does have. It is not expected to be complete, or ever include non-notable people. If it becomes too long it can be subdivided anyway. the fact that it matches a category is not entirely relevant, since this list can be improved to include more information than the category, and most lists have corresponding categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aguyintobooks ( talk • contribs) 08:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't see anything violating WP:LISTPEOPLE. It'll have to be split up into more manageable sublists at some point, but that's a matter for cleanup, not deletion. Clarityfiend ( talk) 10:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Be that as it may
, what use is this article to anybody (in its current or any other likely future form)? And who is going to bother expanding it beyond whatever articles happen to get added to that category? Why would they bother? This article might not violate any policy by existing, but it is still useless and almost absolutely certain to remain useless. If this article was truly a list of all of the applicable notable people on wikipedia, it would likely have several thousand names, instead it is merely the result of an underused category being used to populate a wildly unrepresentative list that no one will care enough about to maintain or expand. —
InsertCleverPhraseHere (
or here)
11:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Um, well it's information for starts, and considering
United States nationality law has a lengthy article about the topic, it seems like the list of people who have become naturalized is notable. Be the change you want to see; instead of complaining how editors would theoretically not want to improve the article, how about you try to help out.--
Prisencolin (
talk)
00:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see any easy or practical way of doing so . That is the primary issue with this article. You are the one who created this article. Do you have any practical way of expanding it beyond the contents of the aforementioned category (which only contains a tiny percentage of the applicable notable people)? — InsertCleverPhraseHere ( or here) 00:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Um, well it's information for starts, and considering
United States nationality law has a lengthy article about the topic, it seems like the list of people who have become naturalized is notable. Be the change you want to see; instead of complaining how editors would theoretically not want to improve the article, how about you try to help out.--
Prisencolin (
talk)
00:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Be that as it may
, what use is this article to anybody (in its current or any other likely future form)? And who is going to bother expanding it beyond whatever articles happen to get added to that category? Why would they bother? This article might not violate any policy by existing, but it is still useless and almost absolutely certain to remain useless. If this article was truly a list of all of the applicable notable people on wikipedia, it would likely have several thousand names, instead it is merely the result of an underused category being used to populate a wildly unrepresentative list that no one will care enough about to maintain or expand. —
InsertCleverPhraseHere (
or here)
11:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.
Cabayi (
talk)
12:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- As user:Aguyintobooks has noted out below, one of the characteristics of Wikipedia is that is it will never be complete. As to how we plan on improving this list, well it'll take a lot of effort, but a little bit at a time.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 04:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- 2nd Comment. It is not relevant whether it has any obvious use or will ever be complete. (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of copyright case law). what matters is that it provides some information, which would be lost if it were deleted. A Guy into Books ( talk) 08:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Someone's made a start on adding more info than a category can provide, i.e. nationality, profession, etc. If it gets unwieldy, it can be split up into sublists. (Also makes a nice counterpoint to my List of denaturalized former citizens of the United States.) Clarityfiend ( talk) 23:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- 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.