That category was being used for Dominicans descended from United States citizens of European descent, aka White Americans (minus Middle Easterners), it wasn't used for "White Dominicans" as claimed by the deletion nominator. Even, there is still a separate category for Dominicans descended from African Americans, aka Black Americans (Category:Dominican Republic people of African American descent) as anyone can see it in the parent category Dominican Republic people of American descent since that parent category was subcategorized into different recognized American ethnic groups. This category was deleted based on a misunderstanding, maybe it just needed some clarification in the cat page. ★ Iñaki ★ (Talk page) ★ 02:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle what do you think about overturning this CfD and you nominating with the correct rationale, as only you made a relevant comment supporting deletion. Others simply did not get the facts right, so the DRV nominator is right that there was, predominantly, a misunderstanding. —Alalch E.09:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I legitimately can not see how you made a relevant comment supporting deletion in the absence of an intelligible rationale coming from you and in the context of the erroneous nomination.—Alalch E.12:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was nothing erroneous about the nomination as far as I can tell, and any good closer in the category space would understand I'm supporting the arguments which have been made before me. SportingFlyerT·C17:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments were made about how the nomination was erroneous in this deletion review already prior to this thread, which arguments were then followed up by more arguments how it was erroneous (at this time: the DRV nominator's statement, my 09:55, 6 June comment, Extraordinary Writ's 19:27, 7 June comment). Marcocapelle clarified his !vote here distinguishing it from the erroneous nomination so that his comment can be understood not to rest on the nominator's objectively incorrect assertions, but you haven't distinguished your comment from the erroneous nomination, and as you, in your !vote, made a reference to White Dominicans, which is a reference to the nominator's incorrect assertions, and there's no other intelligible rationale contained in your comment, your comment can not be seen separately from the erroneous rationale. So, as I said, you did not get the facts right. It doesn't mean that this was a good category, but it means that it wasn't a good CfD. —Alalch E.12:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The nomination was clearly and objectively erroneous and the comments followed this erroneous reasoning, with the exception of Marcocapelle's comment, but that is only one !vote."European American descent" part in the category name clearly refers to European Americans, citizens of the United States of European descent, to this is a category for articles about Dominicans with ancestry in the U.S. for whom their American ancestors are of European descent, i.e. European Americans. So when the nominator said it seems that this is not intended for Dominicans with ancestry in the U.S. this was absolutely incorrect.In spite of this, Marcocapelle reasons that we should not have such a category and that the two layers of descent should be compressed into one, so if someone is Dominican with French American descent, the category should be Category:Dominican Republic people of French descent. This is a fine opinion to have, but consensus did not form around this view, as all of the remaining participation revolved around the erroneous rationale. So there was no consensus to delete. My suggestion would be to renominate with a valid rationale.—Alalch E.09:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These were the articles in the category at the time of deletion. I think Alalch is right that Looking at the content of this category, it seems that this is not intended for Dominicans with ancestry in the U.S. simply wasn't correct: the people in question did have white ancestors in the U.S., which is why they were added to the category. The real question is whether 1) residents of the Dominican Republic 2) whose ancestors are of European descent and 3) whose ancestors resided in the U.S. is one intersection too far, as Marcocapelle suggested. I suspect the answer is yes, but the CfD didn't really get into that, and since we have a good-faith request I'd probably just relist for further discussion. (Whatever arguments apply to this category probably also apply to the African-American category mentioned above.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the same space as Extraordinary Writ. Relist to get a proper consensus, which I would hope will give weight to the overcategorization argument. Stifle (talk) 07:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Get rid of it and all similar categories Why should Wikipedia categorize people based on their ancestry? We don't know the ancestry of 99% of BLP subjects. For example, Category:Dominican Republic people of African American descent contains Max Puig who is also in the category Category:Dominican Republic people of Italian descent. But he is also in Dominican Republic people of Catalan descent, Dominican Republic people of Haitian descent, People of Ligurian descent, Dominican Republic people of Dutch descent and Dominican Republic people of Turks and Caicos Islands descent... Who gives a shit? We should remove this information about non-notable people. Do we really want to list everyone's ancestry for thousands of generations until everyone is from Africa? This obsession is unhealthy and insane. We have no reliable sources that give detailed information on the ancestry of anyone alive today, unless perhaps if you are a Habsburger or similar (and even in that case we only know a fragment). It is weird and potentially offensive to label people incorrectly based on flimsy evidence, notoriously unreliable amateur genealogical research and looks. Why do we not require sources for categorization? Just categorize people on their nationality/nationalities if there are reliable sources. Jimmy Wales has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.". Polygnotus (talk) 11:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
