List of Latino superheroes: Many of the examples aren’t even notable anyway.  Dronebogus ( talk ) 09:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Ethnic groups , Lists ,  and Latin America .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Again, notable topic in need of heavy cleanup.  Deletion is, however, not cleanup, and is only for completely non-notable and unusable topics that are unfit for Wikipedia.  There is no rule that states that articles cannot be deliberately about a certain country's ethnic group.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 19:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why is it notable?  Dronebogus ( talk ) 01:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Dronebogus : Here's an NPR article directly about the subject of Latino superheroes.  Here's another from HuffPost.  Here's yet another from NBC News.  Here's another from NY Times.  So yes, a full prose article on the topic of Latino superheroes is potentially possible, and a list is a shoo-in for notability.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 01:49, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Representation is a thing.  When a form of media, genre, or say, a type of character is almost always one way for a long time, exceptions often get press coverage -- not just because they're unusual but because the people represented are often enthusiastic and want to share examples.  Nominating a bunch of "[group historically underrepresented] in [an area in which they were underrepresented]" articles as WP:INDISCRIMINATE is, well, indiscriminate .  Obviously there will be sources to satisfy WP:NLIST for this topic (I can link some, but I suspect that's not even in question, really), and inclusion criteria seems pretty easy to set up.  The rest is just cleanup .  — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] An IP responded to your boilerplate rationale at the AfD for List of Asian superheroes by pointing out that “representation is only a thing” if it deals with a America-slash-Eurocentric worldview.  Latin American superheroes exist just like Asian (geographically speaking) superheroes and the vast majority of them are probably Latino.  Your whole “non white superheroes are automatically notable because they’re rare” argument falls flat, because there’s a whole world of fiction out there not made by non-Latino-white dominated countries like America.  Dronebogus ( talk ) 11:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Your whole “non white superheroes are automatically notable because they’re rare” argument - that isn't the argument.  — Rhododendrites talk \\ 11:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay, “non white superheroes should have lists because they’re universally rare” Dronebogus ( talk ) 11:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per arguments above.  Also, why would it not be "List of Latin superheroes"?  Doesn't Latino mean male?  Conyo14 ( talk ) 18:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The modern gender neutral term is “Latinx” but I think “Hispanic” might be okay too (though I think it might be Spanish-ancestry specific, idk) Dronebogus ( talk ) 10:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .   Notability of a general topic does not indicate the need for a standalone list of every single item that's an example of that topic.   There are fundamental, unfixable WP:OR issues about what counts as Latino -- ethic identity is already a thorny issue for real people, let alone fictional characters.   Hell, one of the very few references in this giant mass of WP:OR calls the character "Hispanic", not "Latina".   I'm really dumbfounded by the calls for keeping here.  35.139.154.158 ( talk ) 19:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are no original research issues - if a superhero is described by RS as "Latino", they are, regardless of what people may or may not claim.  We go by the sources, not by people's opinions of what makes a Latino.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 22:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Enough links to their own articles about them, so its a valid list article.   It is a logical grouping for the category so valid for a list as well.  D r e a m Focus 07:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting as there seems to be a useful discussion going on.  Being "America-centric" is a reason for additional editorial work not grounds for deletion.  But both the Keeps and Delete arguments are weak on policy rationales.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Do we need a "policy rationale" to keep a useful arrangement of information about a notable aspect of human cultural history?  BD2412 T 01:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, BD2412, a closer is supposed to weigh policy-based arguments higher than simply "I like it" votes.  I mean, it's not mandatory of course, but the support of policy for your opinions is more convincing to other participating editors and to the discussion closer.  For me, as a frequent closer, I am always thinking, "Can I defend this closure at Deletion Review?" because I've had to do that in the past.  Having policy on your side can only add strength to your point-of-view.  L iz Read!  Talk!  02:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:NLIST , then.  Clearly this is a topic of interest to sources .  BD2412 T 03:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per BD2412.  Meets WP:NLIST per sources identified by Zxcvbnm above.  Agree that list needs cleanup and possible re-scoping, but no basis for deletion here.  -- Visviva ( talk ) 16:43, 25 June 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep