Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Chinese people (second nomination)


 * 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/keep, especially as the others have been kept. Cool Hand Luke 22:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

List of British Chinese people
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The original AfD on this list was improperly closed by a non-admin, a mistake which was brought to DRV. At the beginning of the DRV, an admin reversed the closure to "delete." The resulting DRV discussion overturned both closures in favor of a fresh AfD. The grounds for deletion are a failure of Wikipedia's guideline for lists, as this would be better served by a category. Under no circumstances should a non-admin close this debate. Xoloz 15:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Xoloz. There should be a better, less time-consuming mechanism for getting rid of these clear-cut instances; that this has had an AfD and a DRV and now a second AfD is ridiculous. Eusebeus 15:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the mistaken non-admin closure created this confusion -- that mistake, combined with eternal (and unresolved) tension between pro-listing and pro-categorization arguments, brought this to its current state. Unless a general consensus can be obtained regarding the application of lists vs. categories (WP has a guideline, but widely-divergent applications of it continue to proliferate), I don't think this will ever be a speedily resolvable question.  Maybe the PROD process could be adapted for truly non-controversial "categorification"? Xoloz 16:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The Category:British people of Chinese descent may in many cases violate Overcategorization, which specifies that a category by ethnicity is only appropriate if "this has significant bearing on their careers." I went through similar with the List of Indian Women AfD (which I nominated on WP:NOT)--and the CfDs that followed its resolution. While WP:NOT seems to exclude this list, Lists (stand-alone lists) might be interpreted to support it. (Under "List of People," it offers as an example, "'List of Elbonians' would include persons who are famous in any category and who belong to Elbonia." "Chinese Elbonians" is not a far stretch, even though it sounds like a loose association of people to me.) We've been trying to iron this out at On list guidelines. I hope some respondents here will join us. Especially if they can figure out what to do. :) After a flurry of activity, things have stagnated over there. --Moonriddengirl 19:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Category:African Americans says "This category includes articles on black people who were born in the United States who are of African descent". It does not mention that their ethnicity had any bearing on their careers. Kappa 20:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment True enough, but that doesn't mean that Category:British people of Chinese descent could not be challenged at CfD and eliminated, which undoes the work of categorizing the people in this list. I didn't write the policy; I'm pointing it out. The guideline makes specific reference to "German Americans" in its discussion of ethnicity and categories. --Moonriddengirl 20:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Um isn't that guideline refering to Category:German-American sportspeople not Category:German Americans?Kappa 20:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In the example given. The policy says "Likewise, people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their careers." Do you think I'm interpreting it too narrowly to read that to mean that categories by ethnicity or religion are disallowed when career is not a factor? --Moonriddengirl 20:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's talking about putting ethnicity (or sexuality) and career in one category, as the examples show: Secular Jewish philosophers, LGBT murderers, German-American sportspeople. That's what they mean by "group-subject subcategories". It needs to be clarified. Kappa 21:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Chalk that up to one more thing that needs clarification, then. :) --Moonriddengirl 21:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as extreme overcategorisation.Bigdaddy1981 18:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Has it escaped your notice that this is not a category, it is a list? Kappa 20:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So "the grounds for deletion are a failure of Wikipedia's guideline for lists, as this would be better served by a category". I'm confused, why would readers be better served by a non-annotated list? And what is wrong with grouping these people by profession? Kappa 20:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete A category will be just sufficent for that.--JForget 22:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sufficient for what? "grouping these people by profession"? Kappa 07:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * HELP Can someone help me to understand the process? If the two sides cannot come to an agreement, an one side keep nominating this for deletion, than this page will continue be eligible for deletion, am I right? or there is a limit for this process over a fix period of time? Because as it is, I don't see how the two side will change their opinion. The discussion seems to be repeating all the points we cover in the last discussion. So it is up to the admin? How can we make sure the process is objective? I thought when there is no overall consesus, the default decision is to keep? Chineseartlover 22:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This article was renominated as a result of a DRV, stemming from a defective prior close. Normally, wiki-etiquette disallows repeated AfD nominations within a short span of time.  Although it is not uncommon for content kept as a result of "no consensus" closures to see several AfD nominations over longer periods of time, eventually, community norms prevent new AfDs from taking hold.  In the most extreme cases, discussions at AN/I have prohibited further AfD listings for the most contentious articles.  Xoloz 23:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * From reading the two AfDs, I notice very little shift of opinions from some of the participants. So in the end it could boil down to who have more time to invest in the process rather than which sides have more support: if someone repeatedly delete or revert the article, I fear that at some point, some of the participants may not have the time and energy to carry on the extended and time-consuming process. I am a newbie here, I clearly find the AfD process very frustrating. Is there any process to safegaurd articles being deleted by mistake when the supporters happens to be "on holiday"? The case seems to be worse in articles like this one when the subject might be notable, but because it is of minority concern, it might not get enough people to come back and re-state their case. Or indeed even when there are materials to support the notablity of the article, they might not have been systmatically filed on internet for verification and making it appearing to be non-note-worthy. Chineseartlover 05:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Deletion decisions are able to be appealed to Deletion review. Notability may be proved by paper sources, as well as internet ones.  Wikipedians are sensitive to minority concerns, generally speaking, but it is possible that, if an article has so very few supporters that "vacations" derail it, the article may not belong on Wikipedia. Xoloz 15:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Imagine an article on some obscure study of a rare animal, I think it would be important for Wikipedia to contain such article if an expert would cite the information and write it up. I fear such expert might not have the time to defend an AfD. Chineseartlover 23:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm generally against the current trend in mass deleting ethnicity people lists. I think the biggest complaint about them vs. categorization is the number of redlinks, but Wikipedia is always a work in progress so I don't think redlinks by itself is an appropriate basis for deletion. Wl219 23:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:CATGRS: "General categorization by race or sexuality is permitted ... Subcategories by country are permitted". Hardly "extreme overcategorisation" as the group to which list members belong is clearly notable (see British Chinese). WP:OCAT's "people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their careers." is referring to subdividing professional categories by ethnicity (e.g. if British Chinese chefs is not a notable topic, Category:British chefs shouldn't be divided by ethnicity); it has no bearing on overall national categories. cab 23:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Off Topic Comment Actually British Chinese Chef is a notable topic, the last survey show that Chinese takeaway is now the most popular cuisine, supassing the previous leader, the indian cusine, in the UK. Chineseartlover 07:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Keep in spite of their protestations, there is no clear cut case here: clearly the comments alleging it is must be ignored. My closure was improper because there appeared to be a lot of controversy, and apparently this is considered bad form. However, my closing argument still stands: those who wanted keep established clearly that the topic is notable - notice, please, the policy forbids non-notable intersections, not all intersections. The deletionists simply voted "per nom" or ignored ample evidence of notability. Issues with content beyond notability are to be handled by editing and are not to be resolved by AfD. Furthermore, the "mess" of second AfD would have been resolved if the admin who closed would have closed as "no consensus" as his argument alleged: his deletion was way worse than my closure. Thanks!--Cerejota 00:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per CAB. British Chinese constitute a very notable ethnic group. A category in this case would be nearly useless, as a reader could not browse the entries by career, etc. The list allows readers to browse something readable and organized. — xDanielx T/C 02:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bigdaddy1981. Lists (or categories) of this kind are essentially directories of the kind not appropriate to an encyclopedia per WP:NOT.  Eluchil404 03:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Should we delete all lists/categories then? Because every list/category on Wikipedia is a directory of information. "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed" should not be misread as Wikipedia may not contain directories of information. — xDanielx T/C 03:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * keep Say no to the deletionists and their waste of all our time with invalid policy citations. Hmains 03:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The reasons to keep and delete have both been restated and neither sides have moved much on their position. A clear case of Non-Consensus, thus the AfD should be removed and allow further discussion in the TALK page, and/or rework of the page, so a more apparent aggreement can be reached before further nomination for deletion. Chineseartlover 05:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per my reasons in first AfD. Chinese people are a significant ethnic minority in the UK, and "Chinese" is an official ethnic category in British censuses. Qwghlm 15:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * comment it is indeed difficult to know what to do when the deletionists' arguments can be used without change to justify deleting each and every list article in WP. Hmains 02:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is certainly a notable grouping, and worth a list article. Probably the best procedure to avoid repeated deletions of list articles will be to try to get consensus on a change to the list guidelines to emphasize the sort of lists that can be considered encyclopedic, and restate emphatically that category and list are not mutually exclusive. And possibly some sort of a list project, so proposed deletions can be notified and lists maintained properly. some of the opposition to lists comes from the fact that many lists were in fact not maintained, and an ill-maintained list soon becomes much less useful. DGG (talk) 05:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * comment I don't think there are people who made themselevs out to be "deletionist" as such, but some editors seems to be more in favours of shaping Wikipedia to a more "traditional" standard. Personally I would like to see Wikipedia adapts with time to meet the real needs of users. I am sure through regualr discussions and compromises, a balance can be achieved. But the process can be rather frustrating and time-consuming with repeated nomination af AfDs. I hope the closing admin will agree this matter have so far reached no consensus, put a time-restriction on this page for further nomination of AfD, and move the discussion to the talk page. I came across these last week: Proposed guideline for lists of people by ethnicity, religion, and other cultural categorizations, perhaps it could be a way forwards? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chineseartlover (talk • contribs) 08:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * comment Not to keep flogging the horse, but I hope that more people will come join in on the discussion on list policy at On list guidelines. It needs fresh input. --Moonriddengirl 12:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. An annotated list provides significant added value over a category in most cases, even where an applicable category also exists. older ≠ wiser 13:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Who on earth nominated this first time round? List of black Britons, List of British Jews, List of British Asian people were all kept. So this should be kept too. Maintired 19:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Does not meet deletion criteria.  List is notable as this ethnic demographic is a designation officially used by the UK government.  The article does not offer contact information or other consumer-related information, and so do not fall under WP:NOT or WP:NOT.  It also categorises the people listed by occupation and provide information about the people, making it more than an indiscriminant list, and doing something that cannot be accomplished by a category.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. As per xDanielx British Chinese are a very significant population. I do agree that the red links need to be fixed, but that doesn't mean the article should be deleted. ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε†αLҝ 12:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It is well organized and referenced. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:11, 4 September 2007 (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.