Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hongkonger

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 Merge with Demographics of Hong Kong (and its sub-articles such as Culture of Hong Kong). Only a small portion of this article is actually about the name "Hongkonger"; the rest is about Hong Kong people generally. This article attempts to be an overview article, which is what Demographics of Hong Kong already is. Sections on "Names for Hong Kong people" and "Cultural identity" can be added to that article, using reliable sources. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 06:37Z

[edit] Hongkonger

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

Hongkonger (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Was put as CSD, I listed it here instead since I wasn't sure.-- Luigi30 (Taλk) 03:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Articles listed under CSD criteria using a CSD template, do not need to be re-listed under AfD. The CSD template will alert an admin to take any appropriate action required. Luke! 04:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know if it met CSD. Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Article needs complete rewrite. Nearly no reliable sources, and most of it is POV original research. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per WP:NEO - avoiding neologisms, original research and high un-verifiable. Luke! 04:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Such an article is bound to become a personal essay.--K.C. Tang 06:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete On the one hand, we could save it by making it a dictionary definition (delete). On the other, it can be an essay (delete). It's an inherent delete. Utgard Loki 15:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge possible useful content into Demographics of Hong Kong. If this cannot be done, then leave it as a redirect in any case. I suppose it's a plausible search term, although I admit "resident of Hong Kong" was not the first thing that came to mind when I read the title. -- Black Falcon 22:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Clarification. The Google results below show that this is indeed a plausible search term. So, I wish to slightly to my opinion above. I still think the article should be merged to Demographics of Hong Kong (they are essentially the same topic, but the "Demographics of ..." prefix is established on all country articles), but I strongly oppose deletion. Merge and redirect instead. If a quality merge is too complex (and it seems to be, given the multiple overlapping sections of the articles), perhaps move the content into a subspace of Talk:Demographics of Hong Kong, which can then be deleted once the merge is completed. -- Black Falcon 08:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article is written by numerous editors and there is a large section of discussion on the article. Deletion is very inappropriate here. There are tons of research on Hongkonger in the past decades, and Google returns 191,000 on "Hongkonger", 40,800 on "Hong Konger" and 414,000 on its Chinese title "香港人". Think of improvement first even though it could be a big project. — HenryLi (Talk) 04:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I want to clarify that I don't mind re-creating this article if the content is well sourced and not just a bunch of original research like it currently is. But as it is, the article could use a complete rewrite. The issue of the fact that this article is poorly written was raised more than a month ago. Personally, I'm lost on how to save the article, short of a complete rewrite. Also, I'm sure the words "Hong Konger" or "香港人" can be found on a lot of webpages, so I don't think it's neologistic, but the term is hardly ever actually defined, and there is really very little resources for an article about this subject. Most HKers just have a general idea of what 香港人 means, but nobody ever bothers to actually define it in detail. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 10:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I guess many of us would be persuaded to keep this if there were already articles like "Shenzhen-er", "Shanghai-er" & etc. But no, we don't have them. And we should not have them. When we type Canadian, we will be re-directed to Canada; when we type American people, we will be redirected to "Demographics of the United States". That's probably the right way to do things.--K.C. Tang 15:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Looking at google the pages that say HongKonger are tabloid type articles or existing Chinese sites doing a translation cause they have no better word to use. This is a slang and the page is misleading people to think it is an official term. As an encyclopedia entry, the contents are way too off track. If there is a merge, can someone suggest which part? Seriously everything about politics, citizenships and writings are already in better articles. BTW survey results are opinions in number format. There is no room to improve on an un-referencable street term IMHO. Benjwong 03:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Do you read the South China Morning Post, for example? How do you come up with the conclusion that it is a slang and appears only in tabloid articles? - Privacy 20:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The crux of the problem is not whether "Hong Konger" is a slang. For example, "Canadian" is a formal enough word, but we don't have and won't have an article for that.--K.C. Tang 02:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and Cleanup. This article is still useful to be kept in Wikipedia (at least the opening paragraph), though some sections may need to be removed, rewritten or just had minor edits, but on general the article itself should not be deleted. --Raphaelmak 15:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

May I ask why?--K.C. Tang 02:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and better clean up. - Privacy 20:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and Comment You need to think in reverse... Imagine looking up information about people in New York. You get 2 pages, Demographics of New York and New Yorker. The demographics page has real info. The new yorker page is survey opinions and totally unreferenced sources. That is what the Hong Konger page is right now. Benjwong 00:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

where's the New Yorker page with survey info? I can't find that. Anyway such a page should have been deleted if it once existed.--K.C. Tang 02:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. There is no such thing. That is why Hong Konger page should do the same. Benjwong 14:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I haven't taken a good look at the New Yorker article, but I don't think its existence should necessarily lend reason for Hongkonger to exist. Maybe there're some good sources for that article. Or maybe that article also needs to be nominated for AfD. Regardless, Hongkonger is just an article full of original research right now. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I am saying there is no such thing as a survey/opinion page for New Yorker. Why should there be one for Hong Konger. That's what I was bringing up. Benjwong 14:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up per above. Passer-by 19:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Just need rewrite. No political reason pls. Matthew_hk tc 02:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This is not a majority vote. If you insist on rewrite, please flag the article "under construction" and do so with references. Or advise to others on how to rewrite. I am ready to delete this and merge maybe 1 paragraph into demographics of Hong Kong any minute. Benjwong 02:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Do not do anything unless a clear decision is made. Do not give other editors any form of pressure. - Privacy 07:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I lean towards a keep since it has been written by numberous editors, it might just need a lot of cleanup. Abstrakt 05:20, 7 March 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.