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. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 07:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Italians[edit]

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

the talk page includes arguments.

1) Wikipedia should have a character limit for an article. This article has no character limit. It is and will become a sprawling mess. Tell me what established non-POV criteria determine who is in and who is out of this list. Nobody can give me a succint description. They claim the list is only for notable Italians, not all Italians on Wikipedia. Who decides who is notable? We cannot agree on the content.
2) Should the article subdivide the list by geography, epoch, or line of work/notability? I vote that we will never agree. We cannot agree on the format.
3) All the contents of this article is accessible by categories. Why even have the list. The article is superfluous.
4) I would not object to an article that has links to articles such as those found in Category:Lists of Italian people. That however again begs the question, why not leave this up to categories. Even such an article, would be superflouous.

I call this article a monstruosity that cannot be killed because most of the objections to my suggestion that it should be deleted are that: there are other articles like this; that is, The way things are is the way things are. Wikipedia as a community beckons all of us to be bold in editing. We must be equally bold in suppressing chatter, and endless sprawling lists like this article. Delenda est.Rococo1700 (talk) 02:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For convenience to the reader, Keep, but remove all the names on this page and leave the job to list them to their subsequent profession lists, given that the page is way, way too lengthy if we don't do this. But I guess everybody's gotta make a WP:BOLD move once in a while. editorEهեইдအ😎 03:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the foremost criteria for having a Wikipedia article is being notable. If something is not notable, they should not have a Wikipedia page, which is why when useres add red linked names to these lists, they are often removed. The page "List of Italians" or the page "List of Canadians" or the page "List of Australians" or the page "List of Americans" etc etc is technically an article about all the people that fit the description of being Italian (for example) or having strong connections to that country. However, in pages like these, I can assure you not all Italians are listed in the article as some are "less notable" than others. Do they not deserve to be in the article? Of course not. But it takes time to add every person that these lists are often incomplete, and even so, very, very long. The articles on List of Australians and List of Americans for example have an interesting twist to condensing the article, through listing other specific lists that the reader is pointed to. Can the article undergo some improvement? Yes, but deleting the whole thing is simply not the action that should be taken here (more of the easy or lazy way out). For an article like this to be deleted, all the nationality articles must be deleted too (which I am not saying we should do). The point is, we can't just have all the other nationalities minus the Italians for consistency purposes. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There have already been extensive discussions on the article's talk page. Yes, there are improvements to be made, but deleting a list article based on a WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT argument is not a valid reason. In fact, if one goes through the article's history, it's had very few additions for years, so the likelihood of its suddenly 'exploding' into a WP:OTHERSTUFF piece is superficial conjecture. In truth, all of the policy and guideline arguments for keeping it have already been brought up there. 'Starting again' is not an answer because it's not going to make it clearer as to how to break it down into sections, and I can't see anything particularly rational about the submitting editor's !vote and 'crystal-balling' over, "Should the article subdivide the list by geography, epoch, or line of work/notability? I vote that we will never agree. We cannot agree on the format." when there's never actually been any discussion of this nature on this article. Yes, a better structure needs to be put in place, but no one has started a discussion as to what and how at any point. The main point is that it doesn't all have to be done right now because one editor is irritated by it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the characterization of my proposal to delete this list as WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. It is an objection based on WP:NOTDIRECTORY specifically WP:NOTWHITE. That is Wikipedia articles are not:

1.Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as ... persons. Please address this problem and do not create a straw man argument.Rococo1700 (talk) 06:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but not in its present "monstruous" state. Suggest making this a List of lists of people from Italy, and subdividing that in two sections, by profession and by region (including historical regions and states). Many of the profession lists already exist, and it would be the work of moments to create the others by splitting content from here; lists by region could easily be created from categories such as People from the Kingdom of Sardinia. A navbox to move between those lists would also be helpful. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Is this a joke? Italians are a significant group. Use RFC to enlarge Talk page participation if that is the issue. Should be Speedy Keep really. do ncr am 13:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Though this page (like other pages about list of people by nationality) needs some improvements it doesn't necessarily need to be deleted. Probably a limited number of people and then add Main article and/or See also would be better. And btw, creating a List of people from Italy is not the same as List of italians.--MarcusVetus✠ 14:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcusVetus (talk • contribs)

Please people: No one is saying Italians are not important. The problem is this rambling, sprawling list is not useful, and has limits too broad today. Again, focus: tell me: how do we know at any one moment if we have nearly complete coverage of the topic? When the list has 10 thousand Italians? 100 thousand Italians? Tell me: am I wrong if I add nearly 4-5000 Italian painters with entries in Wikipedia? Nearly 1000 Italian sculptors? A thousand Roman Catholic cardinals? 4269 Italian footballers? Etc. All these are notable enough to have a category in Wikipedia, are they notable to be on this list? If the list is not substantially modified, I voted deletion, and still do. Delenda est. Some suggest modification, well go to it! Rococo1700 (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's not that those painters, sculptors, etc aren't notable; it's that there are just too many to add and users don't want to go through all that time so they just add the "most famous" ones. Again, this is why these lists are often incomplete. Why are all your 5000 painters not in List of Italian painters? It's because it would take much too long! These lists aren't here to cover every single Italian, they are here to cover a wide variety of the "most popular" people in each category. It doesn't mean that they all don't deserve to be in the list, it just means that it would be much to long to encompass everyone. This is why it is a Wiki. You start off with the most popular of them, then as time goes on, more and more are added. There cannot be a limit as to how many people are allowed in a list... It just wouldn't work, and a consensus on such a thing would be nearly impossible. Again, maybe we should take away the names and put the various lists: such as List of Italian chefs, List of Italian actors, List of Italian scientists etc etc. But again, not ever Italian chef, not every Italian scientist etc etc will be in that list, just like not every painter is in that list! It really is a never ending battle, but that is why it is a Wiki. Collaboration. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I checked 10 categories in Category:Lists of people by nationality, and every single one had a main list, just like this one. Just doesn't make sense to start by arbitrarily deleting one country's main list. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SALAT - "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value". There are probably over 30,000 potential entries for this list, even if someone tried to limit to a subjective "more notable". No way this short list is anything but OR or POV. WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments of "there are similar lists" do not hold water. Now if someone wants to do the donkey work of organizing 30,000 articles into a "list of lists" I'll change my vote. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vaselineeeeee, the 5000 painters are not in the list of painters because I have not added them there. I place them in categories, for example, 17th-century Italian painters, Italian Baroque painters, Venetian painters, Italian landscape painters, thus I accommodate each by time, place and manner. The 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries each have about a thousand entries (some entries span two centuries); my estimate if that if we reach 2000 entries, we will have to either provide some alphabetical links or subdivide the century into two halves. In my view, the list of painters is a POV entry. To be complete, it should replicate the sum of all the categories of Italian painters by century. Then again, this would mainly perpetuate another sprawling lists. Let us first focus on deleting this list, then moving on to others. However, a list of Italian painters is likely not going to be 100 thousand. The Commanducci source is the most comprehensive registry of Italian painters and has 100 thousand entries. Many of these are just names with vague dates, and almost no biographical data, and perhaps no identified independent works hence have little role in Wikipedia. I am trying to populate Wikipedia with artists known from museums or major collections or major anthologies. It is getting more difficult. I suspect for example, we have nearly 60-70% of the Baroque artists in Artists in biographies by Giovanni Baglione. Thus these parameters, more than Baglione, Soprani, etc and less than Commanducci, grant us the ability to make a fairly comprehensive list of Baroque painters that will receive entries in Wikipedia. The problem with the list at hand is you cannot give me a reasonable number for its content, nor clear criteria.Rococo1700 (talk) 02:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In general, I think WP:SALAT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE caution against the creation of lists like this, but I also think that we should let the discussion on the article's talk page develop further to see if there is any way this list can be shortened or if stricter selection criteria can be found (per WP:LSC). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's a bit late for cautioning against such lists. For those editors who don't work on ethnic group articles, these lists of 'notables' (and they are proscribed by notability, plus are not WP:OR where there is bio evidence of their ethnicity) are attached to virtually every ethnic group listed in Wikipedia. Beyond that, they are attached to nearly every diasporic ethnic group in every country of on this planet: from Greek Australians, to Anglo-Indians, to Chinese Indonesians. There are literally hundreds of these lists, so if you intend to delete one on the grounds of SALAT and INDISCRIMINATE, I suggest that you'd better find a larger venue that involves WP:ETHNIC and other involved editors before making a call of deleting one. A single article is not the venue for discussing this issue, much less making cavalier decisions about areas of Wikipedia you're not involved in. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 08:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I couldn't agree more with the statement directly above me. This is not the proper venue to be discussing this situation. A bigger venue with other involved editors, as said above, should be considered. Having this discussion for one article of hundreds to do with ethnic groups is futile. There is a fine line between WP:OTHERSTUFF and the situation Iryna and I have been discussing. As said above, there are hundreds and thousands of the list articles from virtually every country and ethnic group, that if one of them wanted to be deleted it should be taken up at a larger venue and discussed before bringing to deletion since it would most likely bring about other concerns as well and be a help for the project. That being said, it would be better to have a discussion there on how to IMPROVE lists like these, instead of wanting to delete the article based on JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Rococo, you can't ask us to give you how many bytes or how many entries are allowed to be in the article because we would just be making up a number out of thin air! Who are a few people to say what the page length be? This is why a larger venue is need to discuss this matter. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Wikipedia pages have a byte limit per se? If everything in the article is need to be said and is properly referenced, why does it deserve not to be there? I think making a byte limit or something of the sort will only cause problems down the road between edit wars of deciding what gets to be in the byte limit or not. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 12:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the arguments above. again justdontlikeit is your complaint, not mine. Both Vaselineee want things to stay as they are because that is how they are. The way they are is wrong. Let it start here. If there is no byte limit then let it rip, lets make this a list of 100 thousand Italians, since both Iryna Harpy and Vaselinee fail to set non-biased descriptions of what this article is about. Rococo1700 (talk) 13:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Rococo1700, you have focussed on a single list article that personally offends you. If you have a case for deleting such articles, full stop, try setting up an RfC with arguments for their deletion across the board. I'm neither for nor against them, but I'm for parity across Wikipedia: that's what being WP:HERE means. Personal attacks on other editors who don't agree with you is unacceptable behaviour. Instead of engaging in WP:PRAM behaviour, your energies would be better used for presenting a case for the removal of all such 'ethnic group' notables lists. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let it start here. If we can agree that it should for this, the recommendation will spread to all. I am not offended by the article, but as I have said, again and again. Please define what the parameters for this list are: should it include all thousand Italian cardinals? all 5000 Italian painters? You keep dropping WP tags, but do not address the salient point. What personal attack? Give me a break. The discussion is now in the section of Articles for deletion. Different editors have given you reasons why

the article should be deleted. Now rather than acting the victim of attacks, then focus on the questions related to the article. How do you stop this article from becoming a list with one hundred thousand names?

If no one fixes that problem, then maybe the answer is to make it a list of a hundred thousand names, all of them Italians with entries in Wikipedia. I just want to make sure we are all in agreement (or not).Rococo1700 (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I certainly do find them problematic, and proscribing them would be OR unless you have RS describing person Y as being less notable than person X... but I don't think this is best approached by deleting one article in the hopes that other ethnic group lists will follow suit. I'm more than happy to discuss this, and approaches to putting this to the community, on your talk page. I'm flat out today, but will get back to you ASAP. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:33, 7 March 2016 (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.