Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hongkongers


 * 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 keep.  Majorly   (hot!)  12:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

List of Hongkongers

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The reasons for this AfD are as follows:
 * A category is already abundant to maintain a list of Hongkongers. It is unnecessary duplication to keep such a list.
 * It is not feasible to maintain such a list in the long-term. It is not even possible at all for such a list to be completed. : Raphaelmak : [ talk ] [ contribs ] 15:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletions.  -- : Raphaelmak : [ talk ] [ contribs ] 15:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete A list of Hongkongers already exists, it's called the phone book. Wikipedia isn't it —  irides centi   (talk to me!)  19:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - "Hongkonger" isn't a proper term in the first place. Also, List of people entries are useless and violates WP:NOT. (AQu01rius &#149; Talk) 22:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you may not fully understand how lists work here. This place has something called Featured lists and it includes Lists of people. See List of HIV-positive people or List of Dartmouth College alumni. The idea of lists of people is not to be a directory, but to list the notable people associated to a thing. Lists are useful in academia and encyclopedias. (My set has an index and it also has pages which are pretty much just lists of technical terms or events of a given century.) Bibliographies are, in a sense, lists. The main reference work with lists is the Almanac, but unfortunately there is no Wiki-Almanac. I believe though Wikipedia itself is seen as having the function of an Almanac until a Wiki-Almanac is created.--T. Anthony 22:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Change the article to its proper name and keep. It is potentially informative, directional, and developmentally useful (List_guideline). --Remi 00:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment List guideline isn't a notability criteria but a technical article on how to format lists. WP:NOT and WP:NOT are criteria, both of which this clearly breaches by a huge margin. We may as well have a List of people with brown hair or List of cars with a registered keeper in Rutland —  irides centi   (talk to me!)  16:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Change and Keep. Change the name to List of Famous Hong Kong People or some other thing and keep the article. --Jacklau96 10:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * By definition all things in a List of people by nationality are to be notable. Adding "famous" is considered poor style or POV. However "Hong Konger" might be wrong so switching to "Hong Kong people" is worth considering. If people really require things being spelled out then "notable" is preferred to "famous", although neither is deemed warranted.--T. Anthony 22:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.  -- Pax:Vobiscum 16:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Voters on these lists fairly often seem sadly clueless as to what a list is or is used for. I direct you to Lists (stand-alone lists), which will maybe help you. Read it carefully. I also direct you to Category:Lists of people by nationality, Category:Lists of Indian people by city, List of Dublin people, and the discussion Articles for deletion/List of notable people of Oakville, Ontario. Also note I vote delete on Oakville, Ontario one because I felt the city was not sufficiently notable. I lost. Hong Kong is about 40 times the size of Oakville, Ontario and has a political position that's far more interesting. A rename for this list, however, is worth discussing.--T. Anthony 05:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Those lists should be deleted for long. -- : Raphaelmak : [ talk ] [ contribs ] 09:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I cited two categories worth of "those lists." So what you're saying is we should just have a major change in Wikipedia and wipe out over a 100 of the things? Sounds ambitious. I'm skeptical you'll succeed, but feel free to try.--T. Anthony 22:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I still maintain that general lists of people (as opposed to "lists of members of" type lists) are pointless, since at best they're a content duplication and at worst a divergent content fork from their equivalent categories —  irides centi   (talk to me!)  14:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Move and Cleanup - First of all, change the title to "List of Hong Kong people". "Hongkonger" is definitely an invented word, and a loosely defined idea (The article named "Hongkonger" has been merged to "Demographics of HK" recently). Second, keep notable people - and only notable people - whose notability should be defined by the corresponding policies of Wikipedia currently. When I take a glance on the article, I would feel that this is a "list of mostly HK showbiz people plus some HK footballers plus a few HK politicians", rather a "list of HK people". There are too many less-known celebrities (A good example would be Cerina Filomena da Graca, which is on the list and linked to a heavily biased article.) with entries everywhere in Wikipedia added by fans. If even those less-known celebrities (some even without an article, just their names in red) are worth being on the list, why shouldn't we add those really notable people? I don't even see Li Ka Shing on the list! Third, EITHER remove all Chinese names after the English name (this is an ENGLISH Wikipedia), OR, add Chinese names after ALL English names (better do this in a table). What a messy article it is with Chinese names scattered everywhere in the list. --supernorton 03:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll do some work on it.--T. Anthony 06:03, 28 April 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.