Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Han American


 * 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 redirect to Chinese American. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Han American

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Original research WP:FRINGE POV fork of Chinese American. Nobody on this planet uses the term "Han American" to refer to Han Chinese who live in the United States, and this includes both laypersons (e.g. magazines and newspapers) and specialists (e.g. scientific journals focused on anthropology). In essence, this is a neologism newly invented by the creator of this article. This term is not used anywhere within English language literature, and this can be verified by queries through journal article databases and a google search; even a google search for the alleged Chinese term "汉裔美国人" produces zero relevant hits, and google even asks "Did you mean: 韩裔美国人?" (Did you mean "Korean American"?) at the very top. In other words, even the Chinese term claimed within the article is a fake, and does not appear within Chinese literature. -- benlisquare T•C•E 16:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom. Google could not even find matches for this term - it was all for things like "... according to Jane Han. Americans who...."  —Мандичка YO 😜 16:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Fringe theory: "Fringe theories are ideas which depart significantly from a prevailing or mainstream theory." Please point out in which aspect this article departs 'significantly from a prevailing or mainstream theory'. POV fork: "POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page." Please indicate how this article disagrees with another. Lysimachi (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you point out to me exactly which academics categorise Han Chinese immigrants to the United States as "Han Americans"? The classification of "Han American" that you've personally invented, as a differing concept to that of Chinese American, is WP:FRINGE in the sense that nobody else within the fields of anthropology uses such classifications. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not overly concerned with what you may consider to be correct; Wikipedia works on verifiable information that is covered by pre-existing literature. If your "truth" is not already covered within third-party reliable sources, English-language or not, it constitutes original research. Currently, the references you've inserted into the article do not make the same claims as you're making within the article, which means that you're resorting to unpublished synthesis based on marginally-relevant citations. Wikipedia is not the place to invent new things, period. -- benlisquare T•C•E 18:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please refer to the references inserted in the article, where there is explicit reference to Han in the US as "Han-US" in their notation. I admit that it is rare to use Han Americans to refer Han people in the US, but the classification of "Han people in the US" is used in academic works. This concept surely differs from Chinese Americans (that's why another page is created), but they are not in conflict. As mentioned in the article some people might be Chinese Americans, but they may not be of Han descent (e.g., John Fugh). Lysimachi (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The burden of evidence is on you, not me; you are the one who needs to properly demonstrate that "Han American" is a term used within mainstream and specialist literature. You can do this in many different ways, such as providing book titles, journal articles, ISBN numbers, doi numbers and URLs. I don't need to convince you anything, it doesn't work the other way around. When your article is being scrutinised during AfD, you're the one who needs to convince everyone, with proper literary evidence, that you have citations that adequately prove that your additions are not original research. I said this before, and I'll say this again. You can be as correct and truthful as you like, however Wikipedia does not chase after "the truth", it chases after verifiability. You could be correct, and everyone else could be wrong, but if you can't demonstrate verifiability, none of this is of any use. You can argue all you want about the technicalities of "Chinese American" and "Han Chinese", and you can even be 100% correct, however none of this will save you from AfD. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, and no original research is a core policy. -- benlisquare T•C•E 09:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The existence of Americans of Han descent can be verified by this PNAS article. The existence of various ethnic groups within China can be verified by references cited in Chinese ethnic groups and the distinction between these ethnic groups in China (e.g., Bai Chinese, Han Chinese, Mongolian Chinese, Tibetan Chinese as mentioned in this article) is important in academic research. The existence of Hans outside of China can be verified by various articles like this Science article. The distinction between Americans descending from different ethnic groups found in China or East Asia can be seen in pages like Tibetan Americans or John Fugh and is not new or original. Lysimachi (talk) 22:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, you're creating WP:SYNTH from these articles. Your articles state that Han Chinese exist in the United States, however your articles do not affirm that the academia have a specific categorisation for Han Chinese in the United States. How is the Han American article of any usefulness when Chinese American exists? Is there any reason for the distinction at all, apart from your own pedanticness? Before you repeat your usual line of "But there are non-Han Chinese like John Fugh!", I'd like to point out, yet again, that Wikipedia has policies on original research, and what you are attempting to introduce has no basis within academic literature. The term "Chinese American" exists within literature, whereas "Han American" does not. In fact, most mainstream English-language literature simply use "Chinese" as a common synonym for "Han Chinese" given that it's the dominant Chinese ethnicity. Is this scientifically correct and accurate usage? Absolutely not. Do I agree with this usage? Absolutely not. However, it is how the literature puts it forward, and thus, it is how it should be handled on Wikipedia, since Wikipedia only repeats what the literature repeats, and does not introduce new ideas. Until you can justify that "Han American" is a WP:COMMONNAME for Han Chinese in the United States, and that there is a strong distinction within the existing literature between "Chinese" Americans and "Han" Americans, your changes are not inline with Wikipedia policy. -- benlisquare T•C•E 08:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * To clarify what I mean when I refer to your pedanticness, let me paint you an analogy. We have an article titled Rice production in the United States. However, there are different species of rice, including but not limited to Oryza sativa and Oryza glaberrima. In the United States, the overwhelming majority of rice grown involves Oryza sativa japonica varieties such as Calrose rice. Now, imagine that someone attempted to force an article entitled Oryza sativa japonica production in the United States, and that article served as a content fork of the alternate main article, with very little remarkable independent content that cannot be alternatively placed within a subsection of the other, much larger article. How pedantic would that sound? Now think about our current situation here with Han American and Chinese American. Do you see how pedantic this whole thing seems now? What is the overall worth of this article, apart from being a content fork that exists to prove a point? -- benlisquare T•C•E 09:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." The sources explicitly refer to Han people (a population) in the US, which is not something created by this article. The current title might not be the best it can be, but it adheres to WP:NCET (consistent with Tibetan American) and is concise.
 * Content fork: "A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject." First, Chinese Americans include Uyghur, Manchu and many other people which are not Han; Han people are not restricted to Chinese. Second, Han is a category of ethnicity, rather than country/region of origin. In this respect, it has more in common with Arab Americans than Saudi Americans. Given these two points, Chinese American and this article do not treat the same subject.
 * The hypothetical rice example is not an analogy to this article, but to some other articles. Oryza sativa ssp. japonica is a subspecies of Oryza sativa, but Han is not a subcategory of Chinese and they even represent different kinds of concepts. The rice example is rather reminiscent of articles on Chinese languages. While there is an article on Chinese language, there is another on Mandarin language (and another on Standard Mandarin), although the latter is a complete subcategory of the former and most mainstream English-language literature simply use "Chinese" as a common synonym for Mandarin. Is it pedantic? Furthermore, there are not only Chinese language, but also Chinese languages, which treat the same project, use the same subdivisions and shows the same figure. That is a real example of content fork.
 * Regarding 'usefulness', 'very little remarkable independent content' and 'What is the overall worth': if the distinction between Han and other Asian ethnic groups is of little usefulness, there wouldn't be over 9000 Google Scholar results for "Han people" alone in fields ranging from education and culture to genetics and medicine, which are not only related to Han people in China. In addition, I think it's a bit unfair to criticize a newly created article for its very little content. Lysimachi (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Chinese American per WP:CONTENTFORK. The topic has so much overlap with Chinese American that having a separate article is meaningless. Just because some Germans are of Slavic or Turkish descent does not mean we need a separate Germanic German American alongside German American. Similarly, we don't need Slavic Russian American when we already have Russian American. -Zanhe (talk) 05:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Chinese American per WP:CONTENTFORK or Delete per failing WP:GNG. As stated within the article the subject false clearly within scope of the Chinese American article. While there maybe different ethnicities within the Chinese American population or different language based populations within the Chinese American population, that doesn't mean that they automatically get an article. Those populations/groups/ethnicities need to meet WP:GNG. Doing a search for "Han American" I did not find any articles that give the population/group significant coverage using that subject name. While I don't disagree with the view that there are different ethnicities within the Chinese American population (like how within Filipino American population there are Tagalog people, Ilocano people, etc.), there are sufficient reliable sources to verify that the subject of this AfD is independently notable for a stand-alone article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This article is on Han American, not Han Chinese Amercian, which would of course falls within the scope of Chinese American, like the hypothetical Germanic German American within German American or Slavic Russian American within Russian American. Hans, like the Slavs, are an ethno-liguistic group not confined to one country, so the equivalent of Han American is not Slavic Russian American, but Slavic American, which does exist. As such, Han American should not merged into or be a redirect to Chinese American. According to WP:N, '"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material.' As discussed previously, no OR is needed to extract the information for Han people in USA, which were not mentioned trivially, but multiple times, and were subject to extensive genetic analyses. Also note in WP:AFDP: "However, there is still a lot of debate on notability." The current article title may not be so 'notable', but it was chosen to conform to Wikipedia policies (WP:AT, WP:TRIBE). Lysimachi (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Then prove it. As stated, the burden of proof that "Han American" is a notable subject is on those who want it to be kept. Please show us.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm surprise to see this relisted; only the article creator believes this exists. I'll change my vote to redirect if it would bring clear consensus. —Мандичка YO 😜 19:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, semi-protect, and expand: Han chauvinism is serious above on this discussion page. It's like arguing that Arab Americans ≡ Saudi Americans, or all British Americans ≡ English Americans.  See WP:CSB. 124.217.187.143 (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: 124.217.187.143 is a likely sockpuppet of the banned user:Instantnood. See sockpuppet investigation. -Zanhe (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete/weak redirect Looking very briefly, all six sources in the article, and the additional ones from keepers above, include no titular connection with American contexts (all being "(topic) in China/Han populations/Chinese Tibetan populations/Taiwanese Han/Asia"). Titular only because I don't have access to the full texts, but close enough as any mention could be considered mere passing.  野狼院ひさし  u/t/c 08:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:N: "... it need not be the main topic of the source material". If it need not be the main topic, why would a titular reference be necessary? To Мандичка, there is no need to 'believe' the existence. The cited reference sampled a population of Americans of Han descent for their genetic studies. I oppose a redirect to Chinese American, which is like saying Han is equal to Chinese. Lysimachi (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sampling a population for genetic study, is not like writing significant coverage of Han Americans. Also It is not saying that Han American = Chinese American, it is saying that Chinese of Han descent in America are one of many ethnicities that make up Chinese Americans (and thus fall within its scope). This is the same as how not all Filipino Americans are Tagalog people, but within the population of Filipinos in the United States there are Tagalog people make up a portion of them, and fall within the scope of the article Filipino American.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Are all Han Americans Chinese Americans? For instance there are Taiwanese who only identify themselves as Hans but not as Chinese. On the other hand by marking Hans as a subgroup of Chinese would be like calling Austrians as a subgroup of the Germans. There are Corinthian Slovenes, Croats and Hungarians under the Austrian identity. These people may not be Germans. 203.145.93.151 (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand. The two terms are far from identical or congruent. 203.145.93.151 (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: 203.145.93.x is another subnet known to have been used by sockpuppets of the banned user:Instantnood. See Sockpuppet investigations/Instantnood/Archive. -Zanhe (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * To RightCowLeftCoast: Please note they are not the same. The main difference is Tagalog people are a major ethnic group only in the Philippines, but Han is a major ethnic group in China, Taiwan, Singapore and Malaysia. You may be able to say all Tagalog people are Filipinos, but not all Hans are from China. Lysimachi (talk) 22:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. This term simply does not exist in any notable sources. Specific language groups or regions (e.g. Category:American Hakka people or Category:American people of Ningbo descent) are much more relevant to the cultural identity of Han Chinese immigrants than their Han ethnicity. Cobblet (talk) 10:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 1. Which study shows that specific language groups or regions are much more relevant to the cultural identity than the Han ethnicity? 2. What does the existence of Wikipedia categories of Americans descending from subgroups of Han have to do with this article? There is an article for Slavic American, so there can't be one for European American? 3. Why must all Han Americans identify with this category? The article European American says 74% of Americans fall within that category, but it also says not all of them identify with it. So does the article German American. If well-defined ("Americans who are of German or Alsatian descent", "Americans of Slavic descent", "Americans of Han descent", etc), why must all people within this category identify with it? In the study, which you consider not 'notable', where Han Americans were sampled for genetic analyses, no information was given as to whether they identify with the Han ethnicity, but it could still be judged from linguistic or cultural attributes of the immigration background. Lysimachi (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You have not given evidence otherwise. Show me one example of a person quoted in a reliable source saying something along the lines of "I am a Han American". If I google "European American" or "Slavic American" I find plenty of examples of people identifying with this concept. Not so when I search for "Han American" or "汉裔美国人". Cobblet (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Other evidence for what? According to which Wikipedia policy must there be google-searchable results showing people identifying with this concept? There are quite some pages (see below) on XXX Americans, Americans of XXX descent, where there is no or only one (the Wikipedia page) result for "I am a XXX American" or even for "XXX American". So does it falsify the references cited that there are Americans of XXX descent? Lysimachi (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: there are Google search results for "美国汉人" (American Hans). Lysimachi (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per above. All of the article creator's arguments seem to center on what he or she views as true, rather than what reliable sources say. This term is simply not used in reliable sources.--Danaman5 (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:RS: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." According to published peer-reviewed scientific literature cited hundreds of times, there are American people of Han descent (and Han American is how the title should be called per WP:TRIBE). Please provide a 'reliable' source saying there are no Americans of Han descent. Lysimachi (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The burden of proof is not on us, it is on those who want to show that the subject that is being discussed in this AfD meets WP:GNG. So far Lysimachi has not done this, nor has anyone who have supported a keep opinion for this subject.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:BURDEN:"The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." As mentioned several times in the discussion, American people of Han descent were discussed in published peer-reviewed scientific literature, which is the preferable reliable source per WP:RS.
 * WP:GNG:
 * '"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material.' Which original research was needed to extract from the literature the information that there exists a population of American people of Han descent?
 * '"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.' Per the reliable source guideline (WP:RS), the references cited are among the most reliable ones that can be cited in a Wikipedia article.
 * '"Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability.' The literature cited is secondary.
 * '"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it.' The authors of the scientific literature are not Han Americans themselves.
 * Per WP:NC a good Wikipedia article title should have the following characteristics:
 * "Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects." The current title (Han American) distinguishes it from other subjects.
 * "Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects." The current title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject.
 * "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above." The current title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles: Sami American, Silesian American, Rusyn American, Manx American, Tibetan American, Tamil American, Iu Mien American, Bengali American, Kannada American, Punjabi American, Baloch American, etc. It is also consistent with the example African American listed in the naming convention per WP:NCET.
 * Lysimachi (talk) 10:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As stated by other editors, the reliable sources provided by the above editor do not give significant coverage of "Han American" or "Han Americans". Therefore, that argument is invalid. The second argument is invalid because it is basically an WP:OSE argument. "Han American" isn't even a race or ethnic category recognized by the Office of Budget Management, nor have I seen it covered in an Asian American studies literature.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "As stated by other editors, ... Therefore, that argument is invalid." Which Wikipedia policy is called "As stated by other editors"?
 * WP:GNG: '"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.' Which original research was needed to extract from the literature the information that there exists a population of American people of Han descent, so that this article does not meet 'significant coverage'?
 * WP:OSE: 'These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid.' According to which Wikipedia policy can you say something "is invalid because it is basically an WP:OSE argument"?
 * Per which policy must this subject be recognized by the Office of Budget Management or covered by Asian American studies literature?
 * Lysimachi (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect – a content fork in the sense of duplication of material that is or reasonably can be dealt with cheaply at "Chinese American" and its siblings.
 * Both Han and non-Han people make up the various ethnic groups in China; similarly, these groups form sizeable parts of the populations of other south & southeast Asia countries, and of course elsewhere. However, information needs to be organised for readers. Right now, subjects like this aren't organised into standalone articles. This seems better handled briefly in the respective Asian Americans pages which are arranged by geography, such as "Chinese American", rather than articles for each ethno–linguistic group e.g. Han people in America/Han Americans, Zhuang Americans etc. I'll add that I find the way allegations of ties with User:Instantnood are thrown around to be highly questionable. –146.199.151.33 (talk) 02:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Under the categories European American (e.g., Sami American, Silesian American, Rusyn American, Manx American) and Asian American (e.g., Tibetan American, Tamil American, Iu Mien American, Bengali American, Kannada American, Punjabi American, Baloch American), there are quite a few articles on Americans descending from an ethno-linguistic group or a region that does not correspond to a country. I don't see why you say "subjects like this aren't organised into standalone articles." Lysimachi (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect and  merge for future expansion. Keep edit history. 203.210.6.65 (talk) 12:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: WP:GNG not met.  not a single google books hit. Wikipedia is not the frontier for new classification development.  Americans are americans unless WP:GNG is met.--Milowent • hasspoken  02:11, 30 May 2015 (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.