Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hakka Malaysians


 * 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. JForget 12:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hakka Malaysians was redirected already to Malaysian Chinese while Hakka Taiwanese was already redirected to Hakka people. -- JForget 12:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hakka Malaysians

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The page consists primarily of a list of "Famous Hakka Malaysians", along with a brief lead section explaining that Hakka people emigrated to many parts of Southeast Asia during the Ming and Qing periods (presumably from the Guangdong/Fujian area, though this is not specified). The information in this lead section is handled more clearly and comprehensively at the page Hakka people, which includes a section on "Hakkas in Malaysia", as well as several other nation-states. The 'famous people' list appears to be trivia/listcruft; it cites no sources. Note that the "See also" list includes a link to Hakka Chinese, which is in fact a redirect to Hakka (language), and to Hakka Taiwanese, which was created by the same editor at about the same time, and suffers from the same drawbacks. This is an unnecessary content fork from Hakka people.

I am also nominating the following related page because it is also an unnecessary content fork with similar shortcomings:

Cnilep (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions.  —Cnilep (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions.  —Cnilep (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions.  —Cnilep (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep both - Notable and sourced. Badagnani (talk) 18:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, which sources are you referring to? There are no references or external links that I can see at either page. Might you be confusing them with Hakka people, which has more than forty references? Cnilep (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just ignore it. In all honesty, he uses the same exact phrase for every AfD on an article or subject he likes.  GraYoshi2x► talk 22:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete both. Contrary to the "keep both" recommendation above, neither article has any sources at all. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete both (or all three - the author has repeatedly created a similar article for 'Hakka Chinese', which is a list of Hakka who live in China [edit: now at Hakka Chinese people, which is mostly redundant with Hakka people.]) but for different reasons. There are thousands of ethnicities in the world - let's say 2000 for argument's sake (6000 languages, but some not ethnically distinct). There are 200 nationalities. If we were to be balanced, we would need a separate article for every ethnicity × nationality combination, which would be 200×2000 = 400,000 articles. Even if only 10% of ethnicities had a substantial presence outside their country of origin, that would still be 40,000 articles. Who's going to maintain all of them? Better to have an article on each ethnicity, and then an actual article (not a list of names) only if an ethnicity has played a specific role in the history or culture of a non-native country or region that is not easily covered by our ethnicity, demographics, or history articles. These articles here are all best covered under Hakka people and the demographics of these countries, since the Hakka are a substantial part of the population of all of them. kwami (talk) 08:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There are 200 nationalities. If we were to be balanced, we would need a separate article for every ethnicity × nationality combination, which would be 200×2000 = 400,000 articles ... not that I really support keeping this article, but this argument is specious fear-mongering. We write articles about the notable diaspora communities (i.e. you have scholars and journalists writing books and articles specifically about the fact that there is a "Fooian community in Barland"), and delete articles about the non-notable communities.


 * This has nothing to do with "being balanced". Most diaspora groups only have a notable presence in a few countries. An extremely small number (Indians, Chinese, Armenians, and maybe a few others) have a notable presence in perhaps dozens of countries. I doubt there is a single group with a notable presence in a hundred or more countries. (Of course, groups may have non-notable presence, but there's no reason whatsoever for that to be included in an encyclopedia). And furthermore most authors don't drill down to the level of the ethno-linguistic group when they write about diaspora populations --- they stick to high-level national groupings, like Pakistani American, not Balochi American, Sindhi American, Seraiki American, etc. The number of these articles we write is limited by the depth to which sources go, and certainly sources haven't written in-depth accounts of 400,000 or even 4,000 groups of "Fooians in Barland". cab (talk) 06:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  13:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete/redirect with caveats – First, I could support a piece “list of Famous Hakka’s” which is primarily what this article is.  So in other words, Rename.  Regarding the delete, in that the main article, Hakka people, already contains subchapters such as; Hakka’s in Fujian - Hakka’s in Sichuan – and etc. There is no need to duplicate our efforts.  A simple redirect to the Hakka people would suffice.  Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 14:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Reluctant delete The topic has non-trivial sources about it, in the form of several books and book chapters . :But these are almost always in the broader context of Malaysian Chinese. It's extremely hard even for professional anthropologists trying to write these articles, to figure what about their subjects is specifically "Hakka" as opposed to generically "Chinese". And as for the Wikipedia article, we can see it's just degenerated into a "brag list" with no encyclopedic content --- "look at all these important people who are Hakka" (by what definition? Hakka-speaking? One Hakka-speaking grandparent? Surname spelled funny?) So this is better covered in the context of the Malaysian Chinese article. cab (talk) 06:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  cab (talk) 06:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, that looks like consensus! I pasted the content in the talk page of Hakka people. Hakka Malaysians I rd'd to Malaysian Chinese per the comment above, the others to Hakka people. But I have no preference where they go. kwami (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2009 (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.