Deletion of White American (2nd nomination)

Comment: It's a term used in official US government documents and law, as evidenced by the multiple reliable sources. It's a notable topic which satsfies . This is a re-hash of two older AFDs and is a waist of everyone's time because no new points are being raised
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: This is not just a "semantic issue." This is, as AndyTheGrump mentioned above, a much bigger issue involving a completely |synthesized use of the term "White American." "White American" is '''not''' an ethnic group. I can't find a single source that ''calls'' "White American" (or "White people who are Americans") an ethnic group and if one !keep voter can find such as source I will immediately withdraw this nomination. An ethnic group, according to us, is defined as: a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage, often consisting of a common language, a common culture (often including a shared religion) and an ideology that stresses common ancestry or endogamy." A Berber, a Kurd, an Arab, a Chechen, and a Pashtun can all be verifiably called "White" by the US Census designation but not a single one would identify as sharing a common culture with Norwegians, Irish people, or the Basque. White Americans do not share a common language or religion or "ideology". And most importantly there is no proof of a "white American culture" (as so defined by this article). In fact, the http://abagond.wordpress.com/2008/11/18/white-american-culture/ very first link that show up on google for "white American culture" is a blog entry that seems to purport that white American culture is identical to anglo-American culture. What now? The http://www.euroamerican.org/ third link that shows up on google is a link to a now defunct website that seems to say "White American" is identical to "European American" Wait a second... so which is it? In fact, if you go as far as looking up the words http://www.google.com/search?q=%22white+culture%22&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1 white culture, you find that 99% of what's written on this subject is only in the context of talking about "African Americans." It seems like the only reason this article exists is so it can balance out the use of black American, which makes no sense because there's no homogenous "counter-ethnic-group" that exists. We already have Non-Hispanic Whites, which defines exactly what the census and what our government uses to separate white people on legal documentation. We already have white people and all kinds of better-written articles that cover the subject. Why on earth are we !keeping an article that has a picture of Christopher Walken with the implied caption: "Christopher Walken is a great example of a white American?" Expected answer to all this: "KEeP. MuLTiPE ReLeAbLe SUorcEs
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: I don't see a compelling reason to delete here. The nominator called it "one giant, crufty, -laden  disaster." Perhaps the article was in a completely different state at the time the nomination was made, because I don't see any of that at all; I see good sources from the US census and sociologists. I do see a couple of statements with the dreaded "citation needed" tag, but that in itself is not a general reflection of the state of the article. I would think that, by now, the nominator would know that "it's cruft" is one of the arguments that we are explicitly to avoid in deletion nominations. That's simply a pejorative term that means "of little general interest", but I hardly find that relevant here, as ethnicity is certainly of general interest
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:OR)

Comment: per Kansan.  The article appears well sourced and NPOV about a concept that most certainly exists and is notable.  The nom's agenda-driven deletion rationale lacks any substance beyond S, , and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:VAGUEWAVE||WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT)

Comment: See . And note that I hadn't suggested that 'White Argentine' isn't a legal category (though it isn't), I demonstrated that there was no evidence that it constituted a self-defined ethnic group
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No personal attacks (WP:NPA)