Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Afro-Asians

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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Afro-Asians

I think there are several problems. Primarily I think that this is more of a catagory than an article. I also think that there are problems in general with the article for instance although it states that it refers to Asian in the US English sense it does not go on to define what this means. Asia contains over half of the world's population with countires as ethnicly diverse as Russia, China, India and Israel - the article does not make clear which of these it refers to. In Britain the term Asian usually refers to people from around the Indian subcontinent. The article also does not make clear what definition of african american is being used. According to the One-drop rule, a US policy, many more people may be included. I do not really think the article is neccessary and without any clearly defined parameters - geographical locations, required race percentages it can ever be complete. Guest9999 14:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree. Mlewan 14:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a point of clarification, while the one-drop rule was historically prominent in much of the United States, it is no longer "US policy." The US Census Bureau now permits citizens to self-classify their race. For those interested, the definition of "Asian" being used is roughly, "Persons with an ethnic heritage originating on the Asian continent, whose skin is non-white." Vulgar practice, but that's what it means: Indians, Chinese, Japanese, Mongolians, et al., all lumped together. Xoloz 14:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry about the mistake but if citizens now self-classify their race then it makes the article even more unfeasible. Can anyone self identify as Afro-Asian? can people considered to be Afro-Asian define themselves otherwise? And that's just Americans. [[Guest9999 15:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Comment I have mixed feelings about the list, and therefore will offer no firm opinion. On the one hand, you're correct, self-classification makes any list like this prone to great error. On the other, the positive aim of the list is to convey accurately a sense of society's racial diversity. Self-classifications that defy reality are certainly possible, but rare: most citizen don't use census forms as an opportunity for a joke. Among people with a diverse heritage (like me), self-classification can vary by context, but that method is the only just way of doing things.

For some folks (eg. Tiger Woods), a self-classification is well-known and publicized. In other cases (especially regarding the dead), records of parental ethnicity provide a de facto substitute when self-classification is unknown or unknowable. On a list like this, there will always be some folks added simply because of the way they look, an obvious problem. Xoloz 16:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment Filipinos are Asian?!? That surprises me -- I thought "Pacific Islander" fit them rather perfectly. Xoloz 16:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More Comment Americans often consider "Asian" to mean anyone with an epicanthal eye fold who is not American Indian. In Canada, "Asian" alone usually means Chinese; in the UK it usually means Indian. Hence my vote below. --Charlene 16:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIAS for only considering what United States citizens consider "Asian" and "African". A person of African heritage living in Chennai would not be considered "Afro-Asian" under the rules of this category, for instance. The US is not the world. --Charlene 16:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What if we make this List of Americans of Asian/African descent? And either way, we may choose to deal with this page next Notable persons of mixed race (black and white)
Delete: Systematic problems with definition, and purpose. Would be a source of endless controversy. Not particularly useful due to the vagueness. The greatest bias in list cruft like this is that it is ultimately divisive. If a case can be made for list cruft like this, please use Category, if you must. Hu 17:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I dont see a need to list everyone by their race Corpx 17:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is obviously that this list will never be completed. It is better to do what Hu suggested above as to Categorize only.--JForget 22:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominator's reference to "the one drop rule, a US policy", as an argument for deletion, raises a lot of questions. While many have followed along with the basic idea, that the list could go on endlessly, etc., there is no such thing as a "U.S. policy" that follows a "one drop rule". Don't know if the nominator is in the U.S. or not, and it doesn't really matter, but this would appear to rebut the presumption of good faith. I notice that the nomination came soon after the nominator commented that the list of "Afro-Caucasians" was something that "seems quite distasteful", which calls into question whether this nomination is made for something more than that reason. Is there a

As to the merits of the article... not whether it makes a person squeamish or uncomfortable, or that it's politcally incorrect or offensive... this is not very well-sourced, despite six footnotes. Unlike the aforementioned Afro-Caucasian list, this one doesn't explain a person's parentage. But as to the arguments for deletion, the usual Wiki principles are strangely absent in this debate. The only principle cited is WP:BIAS, which is not about avoiding anything suggesting a "biased" (i.e. racist) person, but rather about countering the inherent biases in the average Wikipedian being a young man, and the only point made there is that Asian has other meanings outside of the U.S. I have read WP:BIAS, and it appears to support the idea of editing articles to compensate for bias, rather than the idea of deleting articles. Mandsford 03:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sorry about the mention of the one-drop rule, I admit my mistake - I heard that it was still the way they defined race in the USA but had obviously been misinformed. I would say that my comment in the other article (about it being distasteful) was not meant to be the crux of the arguement, it came after the point I wnated to make and was merely a personal opinion - I see now it did not belong in a deletion debate - as well this might not. I would though like to make the point that I made for the other article which is that I do not see why being of mixed race is a nbotable fact. I do not think it would be possible to have articles such as list of White people or List of Black people. Also whilst being of mixed race may be of particular significance in the USA it is probable that in other areas other races might be deemed distintive - i.e. there aren't many Black people in Japan, there aren't many Inuit in the U.K.. sorry about my previous mistakes [[Guest9999 23:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
Reply I owe you an apology, Guest. I'm sorry for writing anything that says or implies a lack of good faith. We all take a certain amount of pride in our ancestry, and for that reason, I don't see a problem with listing people who have the heritage of more than one race. Here in the USA, it was against the law in many states, up until the early 1960s, for people of different races to marry or cohabitate, and we've come a long way in our attitudes since then.Mandsford 12:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge into an article about Afro-Asians Taprobanus 14:28, 16 July 2007 (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.