Deletion of List of Hungarian Americans

Comment: Plenty of reliables sources exist both to demonstrate the notability of "Hungarian American" as a class, and whether particular individuals can be classified as a Hungarian American or not. Since  and  apply to categories as well as lists, it is not reasonable to simultaneously say that this list violates those policies but that a category would be better. The list is plainly manageable as it exists now, and if the list were to get too large to maintain, editorial discretion can be used to limit the inclusion criteria (or split the list), using one's |brain and |consensus among interested editors to arrive at that inclusion criteria (or how to split it), which can then be explicitly stated in the article per . Despite an aggressive, and occasionally successful, effort to delete lists of this type, no actual consensus has ever been demonstrated that these lists ought to be deleted. If anything, those deletions demonstrate that fD|AfD and |DRV are currently flawed mechanisms for implementing the |deletion policy, which says that "#Deletion discussion|''If there is no consensus, the page is kept
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:NPOV||WP:BRAIN||WP:CONSENSUS||WP:LIST||WP:A||WP:DRV||WP:DP||WP:DP)

Comment: List is encyclopedic, well sourced (containing 39 footnotes), valuable to our project and, as with this user's other deletion proposals this is a highly disruptive,  proposal. Bad faith is shown by the fact that the editor proposing the deletion states that the list is not sourced, and by the fact that earlier articles proposed by this editor, then deleted (many containing up to hundreds of references), often against consensus, were not merged but blanked from our project entirely. Improve, don't delete
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: I agree with ExRat and Badagnani. In addition, this mass nomination is too |POINTY
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: trivial, arbitrary, OR, NPOV, and SYNTH, how Hungarian does one have to be to be a Hungarian American? And what es tell us that the person is that much
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: based on an absence of policy violations and based on the list's adherence to the quality criteria set for lists, including the verification guidelines, at  and  . Also "keep" based on the fact that the nomination does not focus on any short-coming of this particular article, but makes wide policy interpretation for such lists in general, without reference to any policy or guideline. The nomination does not show how this particular list may fail the quality criteria set for lists. (Not even Wikipedia:Featured list criteria) mentions the above grievances as a guideline to adhere to in order to control the quality of lists. It is not mentioned in the guideline for #Lists_content either.) There is no  violation: The article has legitimate criteria to show why it is notable; its notability claim is established by the abundance of reliable published sources giving the intersection notice and performing similar groupings or listing of people who fall within this intersection. No  violation: The article has a stated inclusion criteria. It is not limitless or in any other way failing  and  guidelines. There is no  violation: obviously, this is not a category. In addition, the nominator uses faulty logic in asserting that an item's inclusion on one list (such as Jewish) must ensure its exlusion from another list (such as Hungarian American) or one list must be deleted. There is no such policy, as far as I know. The nominator attempts to introduce a novel, personal policy, which has so far never reached consensus: Lists of notable persons constructed on the basis of inclusion in a certain immigrant population or based on a country's ancestry classification are not inherently policy violations by reference to #DIR. ("Wikipedia is not a directory"  proves equally problematic, without exception, for ALL lists on Wikipedia and could be used as a deletion criteria for every single one of them--lists are navigation aids, easing focused research of narrow topics, which would otherwise overload the system if transformed into categories; they are thus a form of "directories" by definition. The #DIR therefore lacks relevance in deletion discussions concerning individual lists and should be carried to the portal for all lists
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LIST||WP:CITE||WP:LIST||WP:NOR||WP:NPOV||WP:NOT||WP:LIST||WP:OVERCAT||WP:NOT)