Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinatown patterns in Canada and the United States


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was   Delete. Fram (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Chinatown patterns in Canada and the United States

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

No sourcing whatsoever and almost certainly original research …Grayshi  talk ■ my contribs 20:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support The content here is a reduplication of what's already on List of Chinatowns and Chinatown (which are also redundant and overlap).  What a "Chinatown pattern" might be is anyone's guess, and even if there are studies of specific patterns of development for Chinese commercial/residential eras, such are not properly termed "Chinatowns" - except as synth/original research.  There's also List of Canadian cities with large Chinese populations which also overlaps with this article, with both of them overlapping with Chinatowns in Canada and the United States.Skookum1 (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support deletion looks like synthesis of original research. Would also recommend adding to the AfD rotation the above mentioned forking articles. Moxy (talk) 02:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The claim that there is "no sourcing whatever" was blatantly false. It is easy to add more sources, as I have just demonstrated by adding a source where a citation was required.  There is abundant literature about this topic and so the claim that this is OR seems implausible and is not supported by any examples or evidence.  Deletion of promising material of this kind would be contrary to our editing policy and the rest is a matter of ordinary editing. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment the source you added did not establish the validity of this content fork, i.e. vs Chinatowns in Canada and the United States or other related pages, and does not establish "Chinatown patterns" as a subject of study or relevance. it's easy to add sources; but are they relevant to the resulting WP:SYNTH and WP:OR?  It's not OR that needs to be proven or given examples for; it's the notion that there are such thigns as "Chinatown patterns" that needs evidence and examples - and by that I mean research and conclusions created in any by the article.  There's clearly SYNTH goin g on here, and there's also content-forking from various other articles.  You say that's "implausible" but I don't see why or how you coudl say such a thing.  Find me independent examples of the notion of "Chinatown patterns" and you might have a point...perhaps that phrase came from "patterns of Chinatown formation/settlement"....but books on the Chinese disapora are not the same as books on "Chinatown patterns".Skookum1 (talk) 17:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)+
 * We need more than assertions to support accusations of SYN or OR. It is quite common for draft articles to be poorly sourced and our editing policy is to attend to such deficiencies rather than to delete.  You demand that I or others do the work; what is it that you are going to do?  As for specific sources about the patterns of development, please see Ethnoburb versus Chinatown.  That's the third source I have provided now and it was easy to find such.  What I tell you three times is true. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And taht's another source which shores up the original research/content fork, but doesn't prove its validity.


 * "Vague accusations" of SYN/OR? I have yet to see a citation showing that "Chinatown patterns" exist as a field of study.  Again, as below, it's you that have to show that this article's topic is legitimate and NOT a content-fork from the many overlapping articles; it posits a thesis and then explores examples to prove that thesis; that's clearly original research and synth; you're asking me to prove night and day are night and day....while evading the point that this is a clear content fork from other articles (in fact, it was established AS a content fork - see its talkpage).Skookum1 (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Further comment [pre-edit conflict] The opening two paragraphs of the article make statements that are unsupported, as well as explicitly laying out the content fork explicitly: The common features of Chinatowns and social problems common to Chinatown are covered in the main Chinatown article.  i.e. as if "patterns" were somehow different from "common features" and "social problems common to Chinatown [sic]".  Then it goes on to claim that there are the three stated types of Chinatowns; but this is a thesis of hte article, which then sets out to prove itself.  The application of the term "Chinatown" to refer to suburban cities which have become Chinese-dominant since the mass migrations of the '80s and since is spurious and entirely a conceit of "Wiki scholarship" (aka original research); those areas are not called Chinatown, and their non-Chinese residents and even their Chineese ones do not use (or like) the term.  And the distinction between "rural and frontier Chinatowns" and "urban Chinatowns" is entirely specious; I come from places which fit both supposed categories; the difference is only one of scale and location.  The notion that they are somehow different is entirely a conceit of this article and others where this SYNTH/OR thesis is present.  All you've done is add a cite which contributes to the OR/SYNTH, you haven't added a cite to establish the article's overall thesis as legitimate; you've just contributed to its illegitimacy by continuing with/reinforcing the original research....Skookum1 (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont think anyone is saying its not a notable topic that is covered by many publication. But after reading some real books on the topic    ....I would say this article is a great big POV full of assumptions and misleading wording that i cant find refs for. The article should be redone from the start, noting much can be saved here.Moxy (talk) 21:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing much? Well how about the references I have added?  If we're saving anything then we're no longer talking about deletion.  Please see our editing and merger policies. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Somewhat a good start. Cant you find 50 more to support all the statements that have been contested? Again the concept is fine but the article is not. The policies you are pointing to refer to information that is referenced. Verifiability clearly say :The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. If we go by our "core policy" all should be removed except the 2 statements you have added refs to, so what are we left with for an article? Moxy (talk) 06:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:STUB and our editing policy. It is quite normal for us to have a thin start for an article and so this is not a reason to delete.  See also our deletion policy: "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD". Colonel Warden (talk) 06:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Again non of this rules can be applied to info that is not sources and/or POV and/or patently biased. Its not a stub and in fact is a big article that has 2 refs. If you can find me a wiki policy that says unsourced material can stay i will vote to keep the article. Been here for a long time and this is one of the worst article i have seen in years. Moxy (talk) 08:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

[undent]Comment - The "Ethnoburb vs. Chinatown" article provided as a "reference" above by Colonel Warden turns out to be NOT in support of the thesis that Monterey Park is a Chinatown; in fact it says something quite opposite:
 * ''The San Gabriel Valley Chinese settlement is a new phenomenon emerging on a geographical scale that surpasses the earlier Chinatown model. It includes cities, Census Designated Places (CDPs) and unincorporated areas in the Valley with substantial numbers of Chinese people. However, as I began my investigations, I frequently read and heard people refer to Monterey Park as the "suburban Chinatown," which implied that Monterey Park was the same sort of place as downtown Chinatown, only located in the suburbs (Fong 1994 ; Lai 1988). Just as Los Angeles has always been thought as "atypical" in the American urban experience, Los Angeles' Chinese settlement in the San Gabriel Valley centered in Monterey Park was also considered a "unique" and isolated case of urban ethnic community formation. But the more I experienced the differences between the two Chinese communities in Los Angeles, the more uneasy I felt about such a labeling of Monterey Park.

So we are confronted, as in other similar articles (Southern California Chinatowns) we are confronted with supposedly valid references which do not support the original research, and in fact actually confound it, being presented as if they supported it....Ethnoburb patterns in North America perhaps, but not "Chinatowns". The author you linked, Colonel Warden, is quite explicit about the differences, and about the use of the name/term. And again, how content here might be made distinct from Chinatowns in Canada and the United States and/or List of Chinatowns/List of Chinatowns in the United States is not clear at all.....Skookum1 (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete Sourcing of this rather extensive article remains as scant today as the day it was created. It's been around long enough... Maybe it's impossible to source, maybe it was lifted from somewhere, either way, it falls a long way short of the standards required. We ought to be highly suspicious. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 07:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:OR, and for failing to abide by WP:PSTS. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.