590:
or gender or sexuality from being examined. This is viewed as a form of white or male or heteronormative dominance (depending on whether its gender or race or sexuality being removed) which is exerted over minorities by removing them from view or preventing their experience and stories from being told from their point of view or by preventing analysis of how race/gender/sexuality can impact institutions and events. The argument you made above is a textbook example of an erasure argument where discussing race and making it a focus is deemed racist. Such views are termed erasure because essentially it shuts down any conversation, discussion, analysis, viewpoints, etc. of how race impacts the lives of people of that race and the way race can impact institutions and societal relationships. In short its viewed as ethically wrong in current academia to put forward that sort of argument. Lastly, the solution to your problem is to simply limit the list to subjects who have self identified as Latinx or
Hispanic and have won or been nominated for an Emmy. If we don't have RS saying they are Latinx or Hispanic then we don't include them. Entries without refs proving that can simply be removed.
505:
There’s a difference between an article about systemic racial bias in awards as an overall topic and a list that just arbitrarily labels people “latin/hispanic” and expects readers to extract something meaningful from it. Let’s focus on creating better content about this topic rather than clinging to
381:
is an
American (I don't believe he holds any other citizenship), was born in America, has lived in America his whole life and had parents who were residents and/or citizens of America with Mexican heritage. Yet this page puts a Mexican flag next to Olmos' name! Can you imagine something similar being
589:
Sigh. Erasure is a term used in psychology, sociology, and interdisciplinary academic fields like
African American studies, womens studies, ethnography, queer studies, gender studies, etc. where race or gender or sexuality is removed from the discussion on purpose which prevents the impact of race
538:
quite racist and reduces living people to their ethnic background based on the whims of editors. See my above comment about Edward James Olmos. It includes
Penelope Cruz and Antonio Banderas for some reason too who, as far as I am aware, are European. I agree that there has been much written about
624:
That’s all well and good but surely there’s a better way to discuss the intersection of Latinx issues, racism, and the Emmys than a big list that just says “such-and-such won award so-and-so whenever and also he was of Cuban ancestry”. And I respect detailed, intelligent reasoning but try to keep
574:
The parameters of the list are just too random and are ripe for WP:V issues. In what sense is Edward James Olmos
Mexican? In what sense is Penelope Cruz Latinx? What are the limits of Latin American heritage? Should Anthony Bourdain be included as he had a great great etc grandfather who lived in
555:
That’s ridiculous logic. The media specifically pays attention to Latinx nominations at the Emmys because of racial bias. Tracking Latinx winners and nominees happens in media and publications on entertainment; often by Latinx journalists. Deleting such lists is a form of erasure. There’s lots of
376:
for deletion precedent and my arguments against this list in that discussion. I don't say this lightly but this is one of the only WP pages that I actually think verges on racist by the placement of national flags against people's names based on their ethnicity (not citizenship/residency). One
517:
The problem with using lists to cover systemic bias in awards is that they can’t “see the forest for the trees”— it’s not about individual names or some concrete number or quota, but rather the overall ratio of white nominees/winners/reviewers/etc. to nonwhite ones in awards vs. all artists.
308:. I agree with the other users, and I'm not exactly sure why we'd need to single out nominees of a particular race, there doesn't seem to be any relevance to the rest of the article in that respect. Lists would be better divided by the award categories, not race. Much more useful.
575:
Paraguay? Basically editors are just deciding who is latinx enough to be included. If this was a list of Latin
Americans it would be different as this easier to verify. Also this is not erasure as there people should still be listed on the universal nominees/winners page.
198:
434:
There’s a whole bunch of
Academy awards by x ethnicity (including apparently two for people of Asian ancestry) so they should probably be bundle-nominated. I really do not enjoy manual deletion work so if someone could do that for me I’d be extremely appreciative.
132:
127:
373:
136:
52:. This discussion had a fairly wide ranging discussion in the latter half, but in terms of policy-backed reasons (which, to note, the sole Keep !vote did have, as well as the other aspects mentioned) it was primarily on OR and ill-formed criteria bases.
119:
337:
nightmare there is no way for editors to verify or rectify. Lists by award category would be far more useful and are actully cited in reliable sources, not an unreliably defined editor-imposed racial/ethnic designation based article.
192:
289:. Agree that there's no unambiguous definition of "Hispanic/Latin", so we'd either have to ask every candidate for this list what their ethnic self-designation is, or we'd be into the realm of opinion.
459:. There has been much public discussion and media attention over systemic racial bias of acting awards. As such, this is a notable cross-categorization which is born out by media articles like these
457:
246:
785:
771:
755:
737:
725:
703:
682:
634:
599:
584:
569:
548:
527:
500:
486:
444:
429:
415:
391:
364:
347:
321:
298:
278:
258:
238:
213:
61:
180:
403:
159:
266:
174:
466:
469:
170:
123:
220:
106:
115:
67:
91:
477:. I disagree that the content couldn't be sourced, and I further contend that deleting this would contribute to systemic racial bias within wikipedia.
229:
Arbitrary original research— there’s no precise formal definition of “Hispanic/Latin” and no evidence this is a broadly notable cross-categorization.
186:
742:
Template language isn't my strong suit, but I support the removal. If you are good with modifying templates, go ahead and do it yourself per
460:
712:
I have no objection to removing the flags. That's not really a valid reason for deletion but an editorial decision that is easily remedied.
672:
463:
730:
That's good. If someone actually does remove all the flags, then this article will be facing one fewer "delete" recommendation. --
677:
86:
79:
17:
475:
713:
317:
100:
96:
491:
Excellent point. As a white person myself, I don't think it would be my place to try to delete an article like this.
692:
due to inappropriate use of flags to specify ethnic ancestry (and not identified with country names in violation of
647:
812:
40:
768:
734:
700:
667:
580:
544:
411:
387:
343:
309:
808:
472:
57:
36:
630:
523:
440:
425:
274:
254:
234:
765:
731:
697:
662:
576:
540:
407:
383:
206:
696:). If the flags are deleted, the closing admin should feel free to ignore this recommendation. --
496:
378:
360:
294:
781:
751:
721:
595:
565:
482:
339:
75:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
807:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
539:
racial bias at the Oscars but why not write about it. A list does not help cover this issue.
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
557:
53:
626:
519:
436:
421:
399:
270:
250:
230:
743:
492:
356:
334:
290:
777:
747:
717:
591:
561:
478:
330:
153:
761:
560:
wasn’t done or people are allowing their own prejudice to inform their vote.
693:
456:. This book provides a list of Latin Emmy winners and gives statistics
116:
List of Latin and
Hispanic Primetime Emmy Award winners and nominees
68:
List of Latin and
Hispanic Primetime Emmy Award winners and nominees
372:
as an unnecessary, illogical and unworkable cross-categorisation.
803:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
760:
To be precise, you don't have to modify any templates, just a
650:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
406:
to this nomination as it is very similar and probably worse.
776:
Thanks. Tables aren't my specialty either (obviously ;-) ).
420:
Well sure but I don’t really know the procedure for that.
149:
145:
141:
205:
556:
sources on this topic and clearly either a competent
247:
list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions
661:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
404:
List of
Hispanic Academy Award winners and nominees
382:done in a list for an American of European decent?
625:your comments relatively short and to-the-point.
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
815:). No further edits should be made to this page.
265:Note: This discussion has been included in the
245:Note: This discussion has been included in the
267:list of Television-related deletion discussions
219:
8:
107:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
264:
244:
534:I actually think the issue is that list
7:
355:Not a notable cross-categorization.
658:Relisting due to late "keep" !vote.
506:haphazard nonsense like this list.
24:
92:Introduction to deletion process
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
600:19:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
585:10:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
570:10:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
549:08:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
528:05:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
501:04:23, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
487:03:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
445:12:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
430:00:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
416:21:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
392:04:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
365:02:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
348:00:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
322:05:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
299:19:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
279:18:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
259:18:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
239:18:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
1:
786:01:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
772:21:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
756:06:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
738:05:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
726:22:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
704:18:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
683:04:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
635:00:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
82:(AfD)? Read these primers!
62:13:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
832:
329:Per the nom. The list is
805:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
714:WP:AFD is not cleanup
80:Articles for deletion
656:Relisting comment:
379:Edward James Olmos
312:GrendelNightmares
685:
281:
261:
97:Guide to deletion
87:How to contribute
823:
660:
653:
651:
314:
224:
223:
209:
157:
139:
77:
34:
831:
830:
826:
825:
824:
822:
821:
820:
819:
813:deletion review
686:
646:
644:
310:
166:
130:
114:
111:
74:
71:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
829:
827:
818:
817:
799:
798:
797:
796:
795:
794:
793:
792:
791:
790:
789:
788:
766:Metropolitan90
732:Metropolitan90
707:
706:
698:Metropolitan90
659:
654:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
637:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
611:
610:
609:
608:
607:
606:
605:
604:
603:
602:
577:Vladimir.copic
541:Vladimir.copic
512:
511:
510:
509:
508:
507:
451:
450:
449:
448:
447:
408:Vladimir.copic
394:
384:Vladimir.copic
367:
350:
324:
302:
301:
283:
282:
262:
227:
226:
163:
110:
109:
104:
94:
89:
72:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
828:
816:
814:
810:
806:
801:
800:
787:
783:
779:
775:
774:
773:
770:
767:
763:
759:
758:
757:
753:
749:
745:
741:
740:
739:
736:
733:
729:
728:
727:
723:
719:
715:
711:
710:
709:
708:
705:
702:
699:
695:
691:
688:
687:
684:
681:
680:
676:
675:
671:
670:
666:
665:
657:
652:
649:
636:
632:
628:
623:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
601:
597:
593:
588:
587:
586:
582:
578:
573:
572:
571:
567:
563:
559:
554:
553:
552:
551:
550:
546:
542:
537:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
525:
521:
516:
515:
514:
513:
504:
503:
502:
498:
494:
490:
489:
488:
484:
480:
476:
473:
470:
467:
464:
461:
458:
455:
452:
446:
442:
438:
433:
432:
431:
427:
423:
419:
418:
417:
413:
409:
405:
401:
398:
395:
393:
389:
385:
380:
375:
371:
368:
366:
362:
358:
354:
351:
349:
345:
341:
336:
332:
328:
325:
323:
319:
315:
313:
307:
304:
303:
300:
296:
292:
288:
285:
284:
280:
276:
272:
268:
263:
260:
256:
252:
248:
243:
242:
241:
240:
236:
232:
222:
218:
215:
212:
208:
204:
200:
197:
194:
191:
188:
185:
182:
179:
176:
172:
169:
168:Find sources:
164:
161:
155:
151:
147:
143:
138:
134:
129:
125:
121:
117:
113:
112:
108:
105:
102:
98:
95:
93:
90:
88:
85:
84:
83:
81:
76:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
804:
802:
689:
678:
673:
668:
663:
655:
645:
535:
453:
396:
369:
352:
340:Newshunter12
326:
311:
305:
286:
228:
216:
210:
202:
195:
189:
183:
177:
167:
73:
49:
47:
31:
28:
454:Strong Keep
402:can we add
400:@Dronebogus
193:free images
54:Nosebagbear
627:Dronebogus
520:Dronebogus
437:Dronebogus
422:Dronebogus
271:Dronebogus
251:Dronebogus
231:Dronebogus
809:talk page
664:King of ♥
558:WP:BEFORE
377:example:
37:talk page
811:or in a
694:MOS:FLAG
648:Relisted
493:Bkatcher
397:Question
374:See here
357:Spudlace
333:, and a
291:RomanSpa
160:View log
101:glossary
39:or in a
778:4meter4
748:4meter4
744:WP:BOLD
718:4meter4
592:4meter4
562:4meter4
479:4meter4
199:WPÂ refs
187:scholar
133:protect
128:history
78:New to
769:(talk)
735:(talk)
701:(talk)
690:Delete
370:Delete
353:Delete
335:WP:BLP
327:Delete
306:Delete
287:Delete
171:Google
137:delete
50:delete
762:table
331:WP:OR
214:JSTOR
175:books
154:views
146:watch
142:links
16:<
782:talk
764:. --
752:talk
722:talk
631:talk
596:talk
581:talk
566:talk
545:talk
524:talk
497:talk
483:talk
441:talk
426:talk
412:talk
388:talk
361:talk
344:talk
318:talk
295:talk
275:talk
255:talk
235:talk
207:FENS
181:news
150:logs
124:talk
120:edit
58:talk
221:TWL
158:– (
784:)
754:)
724:)
633:)
598:)
583:)
568:)
547:)
536:is
526:)
499:)
485:)
474:,
471:,
468:,
465:,
462:,
443:)
428:)
414:)
390:)
363:)
346:)
320:)
297:)
277:)
269:.
257:)
249:.
237:)
201:)
152:|
148:|
144:|
140:|
135:|
131:|
126:|
122:|
60:)
780:(
750:(
746:.
720:(
716:.
679:â™
674:♣
669:♦
629:(
594:(
579:(
564:(
543:(
522:(
495:(
481:(
439:(
424:(
410:(
386:(
359:(
342:(
316:(
293:(
273:(
253:(
233:(
225:)
217:·
211:·
203:·
196:·
190:·
184:·
178:·
173:(
165:(
162:)
156:)
118:(
103:)
99:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.