Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Taiwanese 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 keep. Arguments for deletion are not put forward particularly strongly, and the consensus here seems to be to keep these lists (although many of the "keeps" are also poor, and are defending the existence of Taiwanese Americans, rather than this list. Lists and categories are not the same thing; both have a use.   Neil   ム  11:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Lists of Taiwanese Americans, Hmong Americans, Laotian Americans, Cambodian Americans

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Another unusual list of nationality-nationality. Although I'm sure Taiwanese Chinese are different than mainland Chinese (Cantonese correct?), and definitely have separate cultures, I don't believe a Taiwanese-American is truely anymore notable than a Castillian-American (as in the Spanish region). Different regions of different countries have separate dialects and cultures too. I don't see the need or importance of making a -American list for each. Also for reasons in Articles for deletion/List of English Americans (2nd nomination), Articles for deletion/List of Belgian Americans, etc. For very similar reasons, I'm also nominating most South Asian lists.Bulldog123 00:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information.  Useight 01:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * keep This is part of a series of 60+ such lists just for US.  Any such radical step as deleting these should be discussed in the Wiki Ethnic Groups project. Individual lists should not be targeted. Hmains 01:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hardly radical. No other wikipedia (German, Polish, Italian, French, Chinese) seems to feel the need to make Ethnicity-American lists. We have categories. It's enough. Bulldog123 01:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Read these articles. Many of these people do not have articles of their own; thus categories do not work.  This is the ONLY place in WP that this information is available for these relatively small US ethnic minorities; it is a place where editors can find ideas to create articles on these individuals.  Also, no argument is presented for the Loatian, Cambodian and Hmong article deletions, so the their nominations should be voided. Hmains 01:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If by now they still don't have articles, that should say something. They're either COI links, or they're not notable for their Taiwanese-American-ness but for their professions. In which case, they should be placed in the relevant occupation list. Bulldog123 02:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What it 'says' is that these list articles are evolving as more people are added all the time and, in due course, more bio articles will be created as these people rise in their professions and achievements. This whole campaign seems just like another denial effort--an effort to deny that we have ethnic Americans in our US society. Hmains 22:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep This type of list is definitely relevant for research. RandomCritic 02:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And the categories aren't why? Bulldog123 02:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Because categories contain people what already have bio articles, not those who do not yet have them. This is one prime reason that lists are useful. Hmains 22:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep First, these are significantly different groups who have a strong American presence. At least in the case of Hmong people, it is an ethnicity and not a national designation(i.e. the "Belgian/English" rational for deletion does not apply). As for the notability requirement of items in a list, it is in dispute across several guidelines. For sure, there is no requirement that each item in a list have its own article. See for example: from WP:SAL "Ideally each entry on the list should have a Wikipedia article but this is not required if it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future." Perhaps there are other reasons for deletion, but the argument supplied above is unconvincing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nposs (talk • contribs) 05:13, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all per non-notable intersection of races.  Did their ethnicity/parents' nationality have anything to do with them achieving notability?    Even then, I'd say categorize Corpx 05:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep What's with the vendetta against lists of ethnic notables? I'm tired of seeing yet another list like this in AfD every month. Wl219 05:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep All And I don't get the idea of nominating four articles about Asian-American groups in one nomination. They don't "all look alike"... The Taiwanese-American article is somewhat sourced.  The Hmong, Laotian and Cambodian articles have a problem with lack of cites.  All four are vague on details... naturalized citizen, person with one or more ancestors from another country, etc., and without much detail, a category would be more appropriate.  The model for such articles, unless Wikipedia outlaws all such articles, should be List of German-Americans.   Mandsford 21:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and discuss at Portal level. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * delete This what categories are for.Dark Tea &#169;  18:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Then when we get to the categories, are these the same editors who argue that the ethnic categories should be be deleted as lists are better? Hmains 22:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment The categories are only good if you already know which sub category they are already in. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Dark Tea's rationale.--JForget 23:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see how a "nationality-nationality" list is that big of a problem. (Also, Hmong in fact is an ethnicity, not a nationality nor a region; "Taiwanese" may refer exclusively to Hokkien speakers, but in the context of "Taiwanese American" is typically being used to mean "people from Taiwan".) Ancestors' nationality/region of origin is quite verifiable; the groups themselves (Hmong Americans, Taiwanese Americans, etc.) are also clearly notable. cab 00:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable intersection of races Mad Jack 18:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - encyclopedic and needed for our users. Contribute constructively, not destructively, to our project, and do not WP:POINT disruptively propose this article for deletion again, thanks. Badagnani 02:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not add any value to me as a wikipedia user. Thaths 20:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * and only what is of personal value or interest to you is suitable for inclusion?DGG (talk) 01:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Rename. English americans, taiwanese americans or american englishs, american tiwanese looks grammatically incorrect. Maybe "List of Americans with English ethnicity" or something of sort would be nice. Lara_bran 04:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, "Taiwanese American" is overwhelmingly the common name in both popular and academic contexts. I agree that this "Fooian American" naming pattern shouldn't be used any more than it has to be, and definitely shouldn't be used to invent Wikipedia names for minority groups outside of the US (e.g. names like "Chinese French", which aren't used by any reliable sources). But within the US, it's a strong and widely-accepted convention that goes back for about a century. cab 08:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is specific to US, since most of US population is migrated population. But for world wide view, new name would be nice. Let there be redirect for American people. When and if we use it reverse, like American Taiwanese then it may cause confusion. Thanks. Lara_bran 09:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * keep because of systemic bias concerns these lists are helpful to a encyclopedia reader yuckfoo 07:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. A notable notion. Classification not POV. `'Míkka 01:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, per all the "Keeps" above. Tony the Marine 04:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep These ethnic demographics are notable as they are used by the U.S. Census. Additionally, they do not act as a directory (per WP:NOT) because they are not lists that offer contact information or other consumer-related information.  They are also not indiscriminant lists as they offer information about the people listed and why they are notable.  Furthermore, whether or not a similar list for a demographic like Castillian-Americans exists should have no bearing on whether or not we should keep these lists, because it may just be that a list of Castillian-Americans is not notable while these other lists are.  They need to be examined on their own merits.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge all to List of Americans by ethnicity, since these currently suffer by lack of ref and content. This is derived from my comment of rename above. This new title would be easy for world citizen to understand. Lara_bran 09:46, 3 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.