Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Che people

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. MBisanz ^talk 04:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Che people

As noted on the talk page, it is suspected that the article may be a joke article rather than a balanced article on Che people. Required references to support the points made are also lacking and unlikely to be forthcoming. In short, the article is essentially original research. Albert584 (talk) 04:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The issue appears to be only whether Hakka are Che or Han -- which is not sufficient reason for deletion as that is a content dispute at most. [1] is, apparently, an "official list." [2] refers to the "A Che" people. In short -- a matter for the article talk page, not for here. Collect (talk) 12:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first web site you gave does indeed display the official list of the 56 "nationalities" in the PRC. Unfortunately, I wouldn't rely too much on that web site for other information as it appears to contain some misinformation, e.g. the page on Hakka people gives blatantly false information about their origins. Albert584 (talk) 09:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, that web site actually relies on Wikipedia pages so you can't use it as a source due to the fact that editors are not allowed to cite other Wikipedia pages as sources in the article namespace. Albert584 (talk) 10:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether Hakka are Che or Han is not actually the reason why I nominated this article for deletion in the first place. Rather, a conspicuous lack of sources to back up virtually the entire article combined with the fact that the only major contributor appears to be the article creator raises my doubt as to the truthfulness of the article. I really do suspect that this article was intended to be a parody or some other kind of joke. Its main ideas have essentially remained the same for over two years! Albert584 (talk) 09:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Collect. Edward321 (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't fully understand the bit about how "The issue appears to be only whether Hakka are Che or Han". The objector actually complained about how the article implied that some Che people assimilated to Hakka culture, a sign that he believes may indicate that the article is actually a hoax despite the fact that Che people actually existed. As far as I know and as far as the article is concerned, Che itself is as much as an ethnic group as Hakka or Han are. Also, it seems that historically, Hakkas were not considered Han, e.g. apparently, during World War 2, the Japanese differentiated between Han and Hakka. Furthermore, I wonder if the bit about Hmong languages and people is even true or just pure speculation, which naturally leads one to question the motive of the editor who created this article in the first place. In any case, I believe that this article definitely needs a complete rewrite. There just isn't any definitive information on, say, the interaction between Yuet and Che. It is also surprising that an article that is unsourced from start to finish and with very limited scrutiny managed to stay for so long. Albert584 (talk) 04:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that someone who knows more about the subject should notify User:HenryLi so that he, the creator of the article, can provide the necessary sources. Albert584 (talk) 05:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If Albert doesn't understand the article, it's probably because its not well written, so it should be attributed 'stub' status until further clarification. But, had Albert584 looked at the page itself, he would have clicked to see if other wikis had a related item. Sure enough, the Chinese wiki does. Have you considered the possibility that the major contributor is a translator from the other wiki? Dylanwhs (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I request that the AFD nomination be closed as keep as per WP:SNOW. However, I would like to point out that some editors have expressed concern about minimum standards required across different wikis. The Chinese wiki you just mentioned is known to be notoriously lax about ensuring that the articles it maintains are well-referenced (that is, appropriate sources being used and not just any source) (see WP:Articles_for_deletion/Differences_between_Huaxia_and_barbarians for an example of such allegations). Also, even if this article was originally a translation of an article from a wiki in a language other than English, this does not excuse the article creator or any other major contributors not providing sources and allowing it to remain that way for two years. It is time that the stub tag was applied. Albert584 (talk) 11:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since I only understand English, it is impossible for me to determine what is said about Che people in the Chinese language version of the article, nor can I determine the creator of that language version. Albert584 (talk) 11:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What needs to be done as soon as possible is for someone who understands written Chinese to go to the Chinese language version of the article and tell us if sources have been provided there, and if so, inform us whether they are of sufficient quality to merit their inclusion in the English language version.

If it turns out that it is not possible to find the required sources to support a reasonably sized article on Che people, then I am afraid that the AFD discussion will have to be resumed when that fact becomes evident. Albert584 (talk) 11:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WRT to the article itself, maybe it is 'substandard', but, lacking any person with a general interest in that area, you're not likely to find any quick changes in that article. There are several million articles on English wiki, and they all start out as stubs, and eventually, wikipedians come by who have an interest or have knowledge in the area of the article and contribute. I've been here almost 5 years, and there are things that I've started which others have taken up and made better articles. They may be better than when I began them, but by no means perfect. The problem you face Albert, is that you demand instant action and instant results. Most articles are not going to meet your exacting standards simply because the right wikipedians haven't gotten involved yet. You should reconsider why you would take the drastic action of threatening articles with AFD. The approach you've chosen to take is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Wiki is a long term project, "Rome wasn't built in a day". Dylanwhs (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.