Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hokkien and Hoklo Americans


 * 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 no consensus. Despite the large amount of text written here, it's really just a very small number of people, rehashing their original opinions, with nobody seemingly able to convince anybody else of their point of view. As this has already been listed for a month, I can't see how relisting it again would do any good.

I will state that the current title, Hokkien, Hoklo, and Minnan people and language in the United States seems like a really bad compromise. It may meet various political objections, but it certainly doesn't meet the WP:CRITERIA for a good article title. But, that's not an official part of the AfD consensus, just my personal opinion. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hokkien and Hoklo Americans
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete or merge to Chinese Americans or Hoklo people. If this page is created, then to be fair we should create pages for Shanghainese Amercians, Wu Americans, Gan Americans, Mandarin Americans, Xiang Americans ... and many more, and it could go on and on. Should we create an article for all the Chinese varieties that's in the United States? Balthazarduju (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I searched these terms, Hokkien Americans and Hoklo Americans, on Google Books, and found no results. --Balthazarduju (talk) 00:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Most books about Chinese or Taiwanese Americans should have information about Hoklo people, just probably not referred to as "Hoklo Americans"--Prisencolin (talk) 06:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Then merge the information about Hoklo people to the Chinese American and Taiwanese American articles, but don't create an article where the terminology don't even exist in English sources.--Balthazarduju (talk) 07:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the page should be renamed. Anyways though, is there any reason why we can't have an article on the intersection of the two, since Hoklo people exists? There are also many Hokkien people in America who have connections to other countries.--Prisencolin (talk) 15:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * @Prisencolin: Keep. But the title should be modified, since Hokkien and Hoklo are largely synonyms. It should be either Minnan Americans, Hoklo Americans or Hokkien Americans, with the others as redirects to the page. I personally would prefer the first two, as Hokkien literally refers to the entire region corresponding to today's Fujian, which includes other Min languages.
 * Whether Balthazarduju wants to be "fair" and to create a page called "Mandarin Americans," I don't see how it can be used as a reason to delete the page in discussion. Lysimachi (talk) 12:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem I am concerned about is that there are actually no scholarly work abouts "Hoklo Americans". The term is purely conjectural. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. --Prisencolin (talk) 09:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. --Prisencolin (talk) 09:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. --Prisencolin (talk) 09:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. --Prisencolin (talk) 09:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  15:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:GNG and has sources. Retitling is a legitimate discussion though.--Prisencolin (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Prisencolin, it might be better to note that you are the creator of this article "Hokkien and Hoklo Americans".--Balthazarduju (talk) 05:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * To respond to "has sources". Yes, this article does contain sources, but these sources are about Taiwanese Americans and Chinese Americans, and the Hokkien/Hoklo speakers amongst them.  These sources does not support the concept of "Hokkien and Hoklo Americans" on itself.--Balthazarduju (talk) 05:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is precisely the problem. The sources are not supporting the exact content and I see this as a WP:SYNTH the way it exists now. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:GNG. Retitling may be needed. It should be noted that the article is not just about speakers of particular language in the USA, but people of the same origin. Lysimachi (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Lysimachi already voted keep above.--Balthazarduju (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - Same comment I made at Hakkas American's AfD. It'd probably be best to open up a WP:RM rather than deleting the article entirely. Meatsgains (talk) 14:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I am also unsure about some of the facts. For example, Annabel Chong is listed as a "Hoklo or Hokkien American" when are no citations to show that. (I'm assuming that the ethnicity has been inferred from her family name "Quek", but this is still original research). I'm leaning towards selectively merging the content to suitable articles --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - This article is supposed to be about a particular group of Chinese people and/or Chinese-Americans, and they're not the same groups. The article almost immediately veers off into talking about people of Chinese descent who came to America from Taiwan, Indonesia, etc., and then says "these people don't identify as Hoklo."  So if they're not Hoklo, what's the point of mentioning them?  That I can answer - because there are "sources" that can be claimed for the article as a result.  There are in fact two sources for "Although around 70% of Taiwanese people in Taiwan are Hoklo, there are slightly more Taiwanese Americans who are Mainland Chinese (waishengren) most of whom are not Hoklo"  - again, "not Hoklo", thus not pertinent.  "Chinese Filipinos are one of the largest overseas Chinese communities in Southeast Asia." - that's great, but that's not America, and former territory or not, Filipinos don't identify as American, nor is it indicated that the Chinese immigrants to the Philippines identify as Hoklo, either.  This is indicative of what is going on in the whole article - random sources about Chinese people who aren't the people named in the article title for one reason or another.  The "list of notable people" entries are partially not Americans either, but of those that are, Jay Chen is Taiwanese-American, after the article got through saying most of that group aren't Hoklo.  Amy Chen's parents are ethnic Chinese from the Philippines. So I'm trying and failing to see what this article is accomplishing from an informational standpoint, or of what benefit this information would be elsewhere if merged, because it is not saying anything substantive. MSJapan (talk)01:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This article needs some work, that for sure. In its current state it mostly fails to emphasize what this group has in common, and that is a common ancestral and cultural background. That being said though, there admittedly aren't many Hokkien cultural traits shared by these people, but the same can be said about many ethnic groups such as German Americans or Irish Americans, and we have articles on those. As for Taiwanese people not identifing as Hoklo, perhaps an expert on the subject coukd shed some light on this but there is substantial evidence that Taiwanese identity is a relabelled version of Hoklo culture, for instance Taiwanese language is what most parts of the world would refer to as Hokkien. I digress but the point is that this article isn't original research or synthesis, it's just WP:COMMONSENSE in putting 1 and 1 together.--Prisencolin (talk) 06:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm going to point out that you, the creator of the article, are saying the article is poor, and it fails to address its subject. You're also indicating you don't have the expertise needed to improve the article.  Clearly, then, it should not be live, should it?  You are also failing to notice that by "putting one and one together" on Wikipedia when it hasn't been done elsewhere, you are engaging in WP:OR.  This is not a debatable matter - polices are clear on both quality of articles and sourcing, and you've just explained that neither of those policies have been adequately met. MSJapan (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP, all I will say is that this article shouldn't be deleted. There is evidence that there are Hoklo people in the United States, and this article should at least be kept based on this fact. See this quote: ""the immigrants to America were increasingly benshengren (people from this province), that is, people born and raised on Taiwan, especially those whose fore-bearers - overwhelmingly Minnan with a Hakka minority and a small population of indigenous peoples"" --Prisencolin (talk) 01:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * One key difference here is that "Hokkien Americans" is a wholly contained subgroup of Chinese Americans. As far as I am aware, we don't really create article on intersection of a sub-ethnic group and nationality (particularly when an article about the intersecion of the ethnic group and nationality is also present). For example, Slavs are divided into East,West and South Slavs but we only have 1 Slavic Americans. We don't have East Slavic American or West Slavic American for each of them. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1. Yes, we do. Examples: British Americans, English Americans, Welsh Americans and Scottish Americans, Bangladeshi Americans and Bengali Americans, Chinese Americans, Tibetan Americans, Hong Kong Americans 2. Nationalities and ethnicities are often so complicated that you can't simply say one is just the subgroup of another, an example being Taiwanese Americans and Chinese Americans. If Hokkien Americans is "a wholly contained subgroup of Chinese Americans", what about Hokkien Americans from Taiwan and other countries? Lysimachi (talk) 09:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Hokkien Americans from Taiwan are still Chinese Americans as they are ethnically Chinese. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You're making the assumption that there is only one Chinese ethnicity and that culturally, ethnically etc. this group is uniform across all of China/Taiwan/SEA etc. As research shows, this is not necessarily true.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Chinese American For the following reasons
 * Per WP:NOTNEO No scholarly work even uses the term "Hokkien American" and "Hoklo American". When we have intersections such as these, we need reliable sources to back it up - and we need reliable sources to address the exact topic directly and in detail.
 * Nobody seems to have actually defined the term "Hokkien American" or "Hoklo American". There needs to be at least one definition in a reliable source. I cannot find any. Without such a definition, this would be WP:OR and a shaky foundation for the article.
 * I also see this as a "kind of" POV Fork (and that too a WP:FRINGE one) from Chinese Americans (although to clarify, the content is not NPOV). Chinese Americans refers to Americans of Chinese ancestry (regardless of the nation of origin - this includes Chinese from Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore etc). Hokkien Americans are part of it. I see no reason why this shouldn't be covered in that article.
 * I do not see sources specifically distinguishing between Chinese Americans and Hokkien Americans. Hokkien Americans are also ethnically Chinese Americans. I have yet to see someone who claims to be Hoklo or Hokkien and yet they claim to be not ethnic Chinese.
 * Whether an ethnic identity of "Hoklo Americans" exists is questionable. I do not see any scholarly works showing evidence of a sense of distinct identity among "Hokkien Americans" - to be honest, I have never heard of Americans self identifying as Hokkien Americans. (You can contrast this with Singapore, where Hokkien and Teochew people often identify with their dialect. They are still classified as Chinese Singaporeans).
 * I am also concerned with the factual accuracy of the article. Annabel Chong is considered in the list, although no reliable source says she is Hokkien American. Same with Robin Lim. This is essentially original research.
 * There is a lot of WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK in the article. For example, 1 source says that "Indonesian Chinese migrated to US" and another says "Many Indonesian Chinese are Hokkiens". Unless a reliable source has actually strung these together, we are not supposed to do it either and imply that Chinese Indonesian immigrating to US were Hokkiens.
 * Overall, the sources do not address the topic at all and this is not encyclopaedic. Redirect or delete, either is fine with me. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTNEO does not require scholarly works.
 * This is no WP:OR. The idea already exists.
 * This is your POV that Hokkien Americans should not have its own article. Should German Americans be redirected to European Americans?
 * According to polls, > 60% of the Taiwanese people do not identify themselves as Chinese, while 70% of Taiwanese are Hoklo. That means there must be some Hoklos that do not think they are Chinese.
 * There is an association for them. No identity?
 * An article should be redirected just because there might be something that needs to be improved in the current content?
 * same as above. Lysimachi (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll post a full response later but as for point number 6, my understanding is that most of the "Fujianese" or "Fukienese" associations in the US actually serve Fuzhou people, which are a distinct Han Chinese subgroup from Hoklo, despite being both in Fujian province.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Addressing your answers. My main point remains.
 * WP:NOTNEO requires significant coverage of the exact topic in multiple reliable sources. And we usually look for scholarly works here because that means the topic as been accepted by academics. Nothing of the sort is happening here.
 * This is the Fukien American Association. Just because an association exists, doesn't mean an identity and official classification exists. (also read my point below)
 * You are comparing German Americans to European Americans have a look at the Google scholar search of German-Americans to see the abundance of sources which address the topic in detail. If this was not present, we shouldn't have had an article on German Americans either. Can you show me similarly abundant work specifically using the term "Hokkien Americans"?
 * According to polls...there must be some Hoklos... Again, original research and synth here. Show me sources. The burden lies on you.
 * Anyone can create an association but that doesn't mean there is an identity. I could create an "Antartican American Association". Does it mean that there is an "Antarctic American" identity? No. Again, "Hokkien Americans" has to be mentioned in reliable sources (and reliable sources must specifically say that it is a distinct identity).
 * That's just one of the reasons. We often merge and redirect articles if the content can be explained elsewhere and no good sources exist.
 * Yup same. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 23:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * On point 4, Freddy Lim is an example who accepts the identity of Hoklo, but not Chinese. To be honest, none of the above points are required by English Wikipedia policies. What is "scholarly" and "official"? You are setting standards that Wikipedia does not have. Should Cossack Americans be deleted because there is no similarly abundant work specifically using the term "Cossack Americans" as German Americans? Lysimachi (talk) 16:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Freddy Lim is not American - point moot. And yes, scholarly works are required, particularly for topics like these. This entire article is synth. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The point is that some Hoklo Americans may share Freddy Lim's opinions and identify as Hoklo but not Chinese. Of course this is just conjecture for now until I can find a source that says this.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And yes, if there are no sources addressing Cossack Americans in detail, it should be deleted as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There is definitely a distinct culture in southern Fujian, see   etc, and it has its roots as a synthesis between the Baiyue peoples who inhabited the region before being and the Han invaders, see Southward expansion of the Han dynasty and the book: 島與陸: 唐山過台灣, 台灣進唐山. In any case, Hoklo/Minnan culture can hardly be seen as "the same" as Chinese culture. As for German American, most people of German descent in the US today no longer identity as German Americans and has completely assimilated into the White American population, so should we just stop adding people to Category:American people of German descent? Further, German Americans also encompass Ethnic Germans who immigrated to American from parts of eastern and central Europe, like the Volga Germans. Similarly this article encompasses Hokkien people who went to other countries in Southeast Asia, so a redirect of this page won't do it justice.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I'm aware of Fujian having a distinct identity (in Singapore for example, we have the Singapore Hokkien Huay Kuan which is a clan association for emigrants from Fujian province and who speak Hokkien). I'm not discounting that. What I'm saying is: we have 2 separate concepts here - 1. Hoklo people and 2. American people. But we cannot intersect the 2 and create a new identity unless reliable sources have already done so (and this has been widely accepted). The identity "Hokkien American" has not been discussed in reliable sources so this becomes a WP:NEO and a fringe one at that. I also don't understand when you say this article encompasses Hokkien people who went to other countries in Southeast Asia, so a redirect of this page won't do it justice. I thought the Article was specifically about Hokkien "Americans" - not about Hokkiens who went to Southeast-Asia (we already have Hoklo people for that). This actually reinforces my view that the foundation of the article is quite weak. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that in many places, Singapore in particular, Han Chinese subgroups are written off as mere linguistic distinctions, and I think this is simply untrue, at least not until recently, but this is a discussion for another time. The point of including information about the diaspora in other countries is to point out major sources of immigration of Hokkien people, which is not just southern Fujian. Many Polish Americans have ancestors who came from countries other than Poland, since the Polish state did not exist for all of the 1800s. Also, the Jewish diaspora came to American from many different countries as well, and we don't just lump them all into Israeli Americans. In any case, AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP, and while many of the of the paragraphs in this article may need to be removed, that's a discussion for the talk page. There is more than enough WP:VERIFIABLE evidence that Hoklo people are in America, as you can see in the sources, the the following from Chinese American Names: "Many Chinese family names were Hispanicized in the Philippines, according to the writer Lynn Pan, and tend to end in "co" — as in Cojuangco. This stands for the Chinese word meaning “elder brother,” which the early Hokkien emigrants used in addressing one another. Some of these surnames have been brought to American in recent decades". There is also Minnan cultural contribution that exists in America, dishes like Geng can be found in Chinese, Malaysian, and Taiwanese restaurants in the States. --Prisencolin (talk) 16:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem lies in the fact that the topic is OR and Synth - and it can be adequately covered in Hoklo people and a bunch of other articles. You need to find sources which address the topic directly: we do not synthesise bits and pieces from multiple sources like origin of names and Filipino migration to US and come to a conclusion. (For example, find some good quality sources like the ones which exist for "Jewish Americans"). A research work has to specifically address the topic and that is not done here. Till the time that is done, this remains a WP:FRINGE topic --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The topic itself isn't OR, Synth or any other violation of wikipedia guidelines. A lot of the page this page's content may be problematic, but not the article itself. There are certainly Hokkien speakers and people of Hokkien ancestry in the States, nobody can deny that even if you consider Minnan only a dialect of Chinese. This enough to make this not WP:FRINGE, but I'm posting in the Fringe theories/Noticeboard just in case.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge to Taiwanese Americans. FYI I will be pasting the same rationale to the current AFD for Hakka Americans. The 3 academic sources I found that specifically mention Hoklo immigrants in the U.S. all said that in Taiwan and in the US, the Hoklo and the Hakka self-identify as "native Taiwanese". For example, this 2006 journal article by Christine Avenarius, who seems to be an authority on the topic, was the most in-depth coverage I found on Taiwanese subethnic groups in the US, and according to Avenarius (with my emphasis): In reference to the Hoklo people in Taiwan, this source says: "The term 'Hoklo' has never been used by people of this linguistic group to refer to themselves."(p.150)


 * That the nature of ethnic identity is fluid and multi-layered is observed by anthropologist Franklin Ng (1998, p. 118) who comments that, like Chinese from elsewhere, migrants and their descents from Taiwan can consider themselves as Taiwanese American, Chinese American, Asian American or American, and the identity choices depend on the situation, the community and the individuals involved.
 * Despite the improvement over previous means, this categorization scheme is not able to capture the full spectrum of the nuanced effect of homeland socialization context because of the lack of a measure of parental lineage and their time of entry to Taiwan. In contemporary Taiwan, those who were born in Taiwan but with parents born in China were considered ‘mainlanders’ and they tend to identify themselves ethnically as Chinese rather than Taiwanese, an orientation that has been observed to be different from that of other Taiwan natives whose parents were born in Taiwan. However, research on public opinion in Taiwan shows that it would be a mistake to treat the two groups of Taiwan natives [Hoklo and Hakka] as completely distinct in their orientation on the independence issue and their socialization experiences.
 * The Hoklo speak Min-nan hua, or Southern Min, the same dialect still found in Fujian, but typically referred to in Taiwan today as (imprecisely) the 'Taiwanese' dialect or language...For the sake of simplicity, and for political differentiation, the Hakka and Hoklo have been lumped together in post-1945 Taiwan as the collective 'Taiwanese.' to distinguish them as the 'native' Chinese of Taiwan as opposed to the more recent Han Chinese immigrants (the 'mainlanders') of the postwar era. This classification of the 'Taiwanese,' which has both ethnic and political overtones, was a creation o the mainlander-run ROC government, but was accepted and even embraced by most Hakka/Hoklo Taiwanese in the harsh political climate of post-1945 Taiwan. (p.165-166)
 * The Hoklo speak Min-nan hua, or Southern Min, the same dialect still found in Fujian, but typically referred to in Taiwan today as (imprecisely) the 'Taiwanese' dialect or language...For the sake of simplicity, and for political differentiation, the Hakka and Hoklo have been lumped together in post-1945 Taiwan as the collective 'Taiwanese.' to distinguish them as the 'native' Chinese of Taiwan as opposed to the more recent Han Chinese immigrants (the 'mainlanders') of the postwar era. This classification of the 'Taiwanese,' which has both ethnic and political overtones, was a creation o the mainlander-run ROC government, but was accepted and even embraced by most Hakka/Hoklo Taiwanese in the harsh political climate of post-1945 Taiwan. (p.165-166)
 * The Hoklo speak Min-nan hua, or Southern Min, the same dialect still found in Fujian, but typically referred to in Taiwan today as (imprecisely) the 'Taiwanese' dialect or language...For the sake of simplicity, and for political differentiation, the Hakka and Hoklo have been lumped together in post-1945 Taiwan as the collective 'Taiwanese.' to distinguish them as the 'native' Chinese of Taiwan as opposed to the more recent Han Chinese immigrants (the 'mainlanders') of the postwar era. This classification of the 'Taiwanese,' which has both ethnic and political overtones, was a creation o the mainlander-run ROC government, but was accepted and even embraced by most Hakka/Hoklo Taiwanese in the harsh political climate of post-1945 Taiwan. (p.165-166)


 * I can't find enough coverage that's actually on this topic to be able to write an article without original research/synthesis. Reliable sources don't use the term Hoklo to describe Taiwanese immigrants in the US and members of that ethnic group don't use it about themselves, so doesn't make sense to use that article title. The article that already exists, "Taiwanese Americans", seems to be the common name. There are a lot of extraneous details that aren't directly related to the topic in the current version of the article, so once that's all cleaned out, it won't be long enough for its own article and what's left can easily be merged into a new section of Taiwanese Americans. —PermStrump  ( talk )  09:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hoklo is just an exonym for the people, yes. However we WP:USEENGLISH to describe things, and also we use terms like Chinese people, German people, even though these groups themselves have never used these terms in their languages.--Prisencolin (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Apparently in English we refer to them as Taiwanese Americans, as per the few reliable sources on the topic. What reliable sources cover the Hokkien/Hoklo people in the United using the current terminology? This source you cited calls them Taiwanese: "Hokkien-speaking Taiwanese-Americans" —PermStrump  ( talk )  07:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm renaming the page Hokkien, Hoklo, and Minnan people and language in the United States in order to increase the scope of the article and probably address the problems you brought up. Not the most wieldy title, but we can fine tune it later. As for original research, on page 652 of Youth Cultures in America, it mention that Hokkiens are part of the Malaysian Chinese population, within the context of Asian American.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * @PermStrump: Which source says they are "apparently" all Taiwanese Americans? Lysimachi (talk) 09:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)