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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yakut American

[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to be notable per WP:GNG. In search for the subject, there does not appear to be any reliable source material regarding this subject on the web, or books. Therefore, failing general notability guidelines I am proposing that this article be deleted. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This one is tricky. Perhaps this would be better suited for WP:N/N? There is a page for Asian American, Armenian American, Albanian American, Angolan American... You get the picture. I think the issue in question here is: "How large does an American ethnic group have to be before it warrants its own page?" AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 19:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nothing wrong with the subject as long as there are sources. Yakuts in California is just as good when it will satisfy WP:GNG. Size of ethnos irrelevant Staszek Lem (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Staszek Lem. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 23:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a tiny ethnic group within Russia, and it is not clear at all that Yakuts who immigrate to the United States would identify as "Yakut American" rather than "Russian American". RightCowLeftCoast has done a search for sources and has found none that refer to "Yakut Americans" as a distinct topic. This is classic WP:SYN: Yakuts exist, and some Yakuts have immigrated to America, therefore Yakut Americans exist! No; there have to be actual sources that treat this topic "Yakut Americans" as separate from Russian Americans in order for us to write an article, but there aren't. Shrigley (talk) 03:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement about "separate treatment". There does exist a requirement about "nontrivial coverage". The article does have two sources which treat the topic of Yakuts in America in a nontrivial way; one being a book whose title, in part says abour role of Yakutia in Russian colonization of the Americas. On the other hand I do agree that the term "Yakut Americans" is rare usage and no modern info.

Therefore Rename to Yakuts in America is a proper solution, rather than to delete a verifiable and rarely seen (strength of wikipedia!) information. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This maybe a notable subject in connection with important role of Yakuts in colonization of Alaska. Here is another online source about this in Russian. But as it stands right now, there is little to keep. My very best wishes (talk) 03:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You contradict yourself. The problem is not with the topic, the problem is with the article title, and the solution is not deletion of information verifiable from multiple sources, but renaming of the article. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, in reading the source, via a Chrome translation, it appears to focus VERY HEAVILY upon the history of Fort Ross, and not about the subject of the ethnicity Yakut Americans. The source, if found to be a reliable source (it claims to be a Russian Magazine's website), would be very good to use on the Fort Ross Article or maybe Russian America, but since it focuses on the history of Fort Ross and Russian America, and not primarily about the subject that is the discussion of this AfD, it does not show that the subject Yakut Americans is notable. Perhaps, what verified content within this article can be merged into the article about Russian Americans, however the two references presently used, the 1st reference is about Russian America again (not Yakut Americans), and the second is again about Russian America; therefore in truth there are NO reliable sources presently used in the article that support the notability of the subject.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Or it could be merged to Yakut. Perhaps it would be best to make this a redirect right now, but without protection. If anyone wants to develop this page to something better in a future, they are very welcome. My very best wishes (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Staszek Lem. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 14:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May I remind other editors of WP:VOTE. Only stating that an article should be kept without advancing a reason per essays, guidelines, and policies why an article should be kept does not advance the discussion.

The primary question in an AfD, is whether a subject is notable. No discussion has been advanced by those who oppose deletion, thus far, that the subject is notable per the guidelines and policies that define what notability is on wikipedia.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not every person voting can come up with an entirely new set of opinions. If Staszek Lem outlined the arguments well, and very similar to what others would've said, then people can concur. I have also not seen an argument here why the topic doesn't meet the notability guidelines, but would be open to a specific argument. Ufwuct (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, let us look at the reason for the keep opinion of Staszek Lem. The editor stated that if there are sources then it should be reasonable for the article not to be deleted. However, the editor did not say whether there were sufficient editors to show that the subject has passed notability guidelines and policies. In my opening statement of the AfD. I showed clearly that there are not sufficient reliable sources that cover the subject that would meet significant coverage requirements for the subject to pass WP:GNG. Does the subject exist; I am not doubting that. But is the subject is notable; it is my opinion that it is not.

Furthermore, the references that are found, do not primarily focus on the subject, but on the historical Russian America period, which I have suggested the references pointed towards be used to enhance.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's an ethnic group in the United States. I have met at least a few myself - though not in any of the apparent Yakut hot-spots listed in the article. The size of the ethnic group is most likely exaggerated, but I think that would warrant a "citation needed" and/or "dubious" tag rather than a wholesale deleted. Would not support merging with Russian Americans, because they are entirely different. If it is decided to merge this information, "Asian American" or "Yakuts" seems a much more appropriate place. Ufwuct (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Until very recently (maybe early 2010), Kazakh Wikipedia had very few articles (maybe 5000 articles). It would really bug me because I knew that there were significant topics that were not covered on the internet or Wikipedia, yet I knew they were important (sorry, I can't think of specific examples, but I think they had to do with specifc practices during Nauryz and historical figures from the 1500s or so). Eventually, maybe some Kazakhs got together and collaborated on writing articles, because there is more information.

I've also created or worked on stub articles before which were not well sourced but eventually became decent articles. I really don't understand the rush to delete an ethnic group from Wikipedia. It's not advertising, spam, or likely to fade in significance within two years. It's not a POV fork article. And it's not like an article for Negidal-Americans or Vep-Americans. There are likely to be more than just the couple Yakuts I met in San Antonio in the United States since there a half million of them, there is increasing international involvement in mining and oil/gas within Sakha Republic, and the fact that they had at least some presence in North America dating back 200 years.

This is a stub, not non-notable. Ufwuct (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There need to be some reliable sources that can actually flesh out this article, otherwise it should be removed. As noted above the historical article in Russian really doesn't have much to say directly about Yakuts in America. And while the census bureau has "Yakut" as an ethnic category, in the latest census figures that I've seen no one has chosen it as a form of identification. So the half million figures are unsourced and probably wildly over-inflated. Either some strong sources need to be provided, or the whole thing should be canned.Konchevnik81 (talk) 16:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can shed some light why, as some people mention here, recent census does not have "Yakuts": whoever minimally familiar with the topic would have known that after the collapse of the ~~last Russian Empire~~ Soviet Union, Yakuts prefer to call themselves Sakha people. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the case, there does not appear to be significant coverage of Sakha Americans. See this search here for web hits, and here for book hits. The closest that the search gets is for a "Sakha American Business Education Center" found at the University of Yakutsk. Otherwise, the subject does not appear to be notable. Furthermore, if we look at the United States Census Bureau's American Community Survey report for 2009-1011 on ancestry (used for ancestries of White Americans and African Americans, you will find no mention of of Yakuts or Sakhas. This maybe because the may fall under the Russian Americans ancestry, but that is speculation on my part. Furthermore, it cannot be said that they are not included due to a small population size, as populations as small as Cypriot Americans are represented, with a population estimate of 5,560.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a |link to the American Community Survey results on ethnicity/ancestry in 2010 (and just for good measure here are |stats for ancestry of Asians in any combination from 2011). Neither "Yakut" nor "Sakha" makes the list. Claiming that there are 500,000 Yakut Americans is in effect arguing that there are more people identifying as Yakut in the US than there are identifying as Romanians, Iranians, Armenians, or Croatians. I highly suspect that the claims of existence of this ethnic community in the US is OR. The reason I mention the census data is that in order for this to be a legitimate article, it needs to discuss an actual community. Therefore there needs to be some evidence that there are Americans who identify as Yakut/Sakha *as a group*. "Americans who have ancestors from Russia/USSR who may have been Yakuts/Sakha or who may have lived in Yakutia at some point" might be an interesting article, but that's a bit different than what this article claims to be (maybe more of a category, if any noteworthy people can be defined as such). Considering that a Sakha | delegation was just visiting the American Museum of Natural History, one would think that at least a mention would be made by the museum of Yakuts living in America, if there was such a community. Likewise, I would expect actual news | sources from Yakutia/Sakha to mention this diaspora in their summary of Sakha foreign relations since 1991. I'm all for considering the article notable, whatever it's title would be (Yakut or Sakha), if some actual sources can be provided to show that this group actually exists in the US, rather than as a state of conjecture. Konchevnik81 (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and accept all your arguments. At the same time please understand mine as well. Bear with me for a sec:

I agree that "Sakha Americans" and "Yakut Americans" as a separate ethnic communities are fairly nonnotable (despite having a couple of forums/websites) in terms of reliable 3rd party sources.
At the same time the article contains a piece of interesting historical information about Yakuts ina Americ in 19th century, verifiable from at least 3 reliable sources.
The goal of wikipedia is to serve as an information hub, especially for information not redily available form other wikipedias (and I am not talking about articles kind of ~~"List of towns with obscene names"~~ ..er.. List of the longest English words with one syllable.)
An article with valid verifiable content may have a really lousy title, but to delete on this formal grounds is hardly in spirit of wikipedia. A better approach is to rename the page (my suggestion above), so that the content preserved.
In other words, it is a good idea not to confuse article subject and article title
References at hand, I could have happily waited for the article deleted and after that I could have written Yakuts in America, with nice edit count increase, DYK, good article, etc. But I do want the original author's contribution to wikipedia recognized and this new author educated about wikipedia ways, rather than chooed away.

In other words, I am a devoted inclusionist, as long as an article in question is not a vehicle of promotion of someone's glory or original thought. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So to sum up what I understand is the statement by Staszek Lem, although the subject does not meet notability requirements due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, particularly tertiary sources, we should ignore all rules because there is historical reasons to keep the subject?

If this is the case, then may I offer my previous rebutle. Although, there are reliable sources in use in the article, and have also been included here in discussion, those sources primarily deal with Yakuts as being part of the historical period of Russian America. As such those mentions of Yakuts being part of Russian America, should be used in that article, and used to enhance that article, and does not necessarily mean that the Yakut American ethnicity is notable in and of itself.

Perhaps a redirect to Russian American might be in order, as the population is related to the larger ethnicity, and what verified content exist from this article (that we are discussing in this AfD) can be merged into the Russian American article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwyrxian (talk) 08:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: There are some complex issues being raised here, and I think another week will help editors to reach consensus. You may want to reach out to other editors to see if anyone else has more relevant information; while you can't canvas, specific editors, I recommend posting notices on relevant Wikiprojects. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both DelSorts for the two wikiprojects that cover this article WP:USA & WP:ETHNIC have this AfD listed. Perhaps as the relisting Administrator you can use a Please see, message that is keeping with WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification, on both those wikiproject's talk pages?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Staszek Lem: Could you provide some of those references and forums that you have? I would be interested to look through them...I have found next to nothing online on the subject of these communities, so I think it would be helpful to review the information you have. Otherwise, I would tend to agree with RightCowLeftCoast about redirecting this article elsewhere (Russian America and Russian Americans).Konchevnik81 (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Yakuts - Google Books search for "Sakha-American" -business reveals that according to the book "Russia's Diamond Colony: The Republic of Sakha", there used to be a Sakha-American Center at the University of Alaska, Anchorage. But that was published in 2000, and I can find no evidence that the center now exists - it may have been folded into their American Russian Center. In any case, what's available would make a useful addition to the Yakuts article, with a redirect from this article, but there's not enough material for a separate article. Altered Walter (talk) 10:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 10:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:57, 27 December 2012 (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.