Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maps of American ancestries

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. No prejudice to pagemove. Feel free to discuss on talk page or be bold. Jujutacular ^talk 03:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maps of American ancestries

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has been tagged as WP:Original research since April 2008. This is a well written essay about a very interesting (at least to me) and important subject. Also the maps are quite nice and represent a lot of work. However I think it really should be published somewhere other than an encyclopedia. The facts about the ethnic makeup of the United States are already available in other articles, this one is mainly about one person's opinions and speculations. Jaque Hammer (talk) 00:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as firs half of the article is an essay and second ha i a repository of images. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. WP:NOTREPOSITORY does not apply - you can't claim both that it is an essay and that it is nothing but a repository of maps. Specific changes, rewrite or merge would be more reasonable to propose. --JWB (talk) 03:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with JWB above--this was content split off from other articles. I would rather see specific changes and improvements proposed than see it deleted. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 05:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page has existed for over 5 years. I find it very suspicious that Jaque Hammer's profile is only 5 days old and that he is already proposing to deletes. M stone (talk) 06:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my home page.Jaque Hammer (talk) 11:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone with a legitimate reason can nominate articles for deletion. Your comment seems WP:BITE-y to me. Also the article's length of existence has nothing to do with whether this should be kept or not.—Chris!_c/t 22:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that I am biting a new user. I believe that this editor created a temporary profile to obscure their regular profile. The article's length of existence and the amount of effort should be considered before deletion. It takes a long time to build a house and very little time to burn it to the ground. All comments presented here seem to be great arguments for fixing the page or leaving tags up until it is. Not deleting it. By the way there are clearly links to existing content. M stone (talk) 04:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the nominator said this is original research. It seems to consist of two parts, both of which are OR, probably by two different editors. The first part, an essay, says that most American's don't know too much about their ancestry (true enough by my experience), while the second gives detailed maps about the relative locations of members of various ethnic groups which the first part said don't even know who they are.Wolfview (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be very destructive to delete rather than fix this page. Don't forget that creating images is an exception to wikipedia's original research policy. See: WP:OI.—Preceding unsigned comment added by M stone (talk • contribs) 15:02, 19 September 2010

Actually, images aren't exempted from WP:OR, though the bar is set lower than prose. It reads "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments" (emphasis mine) That said, I don't agree/disagree with Wolfview. Just trying to clarify what our policy said.—Chris!_c/t 22:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that these maps are recreations of ones located in other places see Map Gallery of Ethnic Groups in the United States. Therefore they do not violate wikipedia's original research policy. Seems like such a shame to delete such great content. Editors took a lot of time and effort to put this page together and it seems like it would be very useful for potential users of wikipedia. Deletion is such a blunt instrument. M stone (talk) 04:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Race and ethnicity in the United States. If there is content that isn't already there, or if content there was taken from this page. Taemyr (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be adequately covered in Race and ethnicity in the United States. Still, it is amazing that so many states have a German plurality, including Florida. Edison (talk) 03:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a good subarticle of "Race and ethnicity in the United States" where visualization of the distribution of ethnicities can be the focus. --Polaron | Talk 17:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful content to Race and ethnicity in the United States; the maps are definitely useful, but Wikipedia should not be a repository of these maps. Commons is the right place for them.—Chris!_c/t 19:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve, and work on a better title. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I say MUST KEEP and IMPROVE, and work on a better title. This is a good article of "Race and ethnicity in the United States" where MANY MAPS should be with it for visualization of the distribution of ethnicities can be the focus YES YES . -- Henry Gurr, a long time Wikipedia User and Contributor of $ and content. 22 September 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.153.253.225 (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then improve it, not just say "It needs improvement", if you clearly has no intention to do it. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a page needs to be improved does not mean it should be deleted. It seems like black mail. Improve the page or I will delete it. This is not a valid reason for proposing deletion. 157.93.17.23 (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. This is a summary page, and the information is well-sourced. We have consistently held that creating maps is not OR--and this applies to thematic maps as well. I suggest the title Distribution of American ancestries. DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Distribution of American ancestries is a much more accurate title. M stone (talk) 04:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that topic is treated at Race and ethnicity in the United States. Taemyr (talk) 11:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a valid point. An even more accurate title would be Distribution of American ancestries according to 2000 US census. This would allow the main article to treat the topic more generally while this page could be devoted to specifically to the 2000 census data. This will be more important as the 2010 census has just been completed. It looks like this would only require significant modification of the introduction since most of the article and images are based on the 2000 census data. M stone (talk) 11:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and give author opportunity to improve. Clearly notable content. BlueRobe (talk) 03:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments of DGG. Yworo (talk) 04:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to Distribution of American ancestries and get rid of the maps, as Wikipedia is not an image gallery. The main topic is notable and very relevant to society today, and has been discussed in various academic publications. It's not wholly OR (articles actually can be improved), and can be saved. /ƒETCH COMMS / 01:34, 27 September 2010 (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.