Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Asian people (2nd 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, defaulting to keep. Since there are far fewer redlinks this time, it seems the main complaint has been addressed.Krakatoa Katie 05:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of British Asian people

This was recently part of a multi-article AfD which was closed as no consensus. As the name suggests, it's extremely broad and redundant to Category:British Asians and the various subcats therein. After a routine cleanup of some entirely uncited redlinks, I was surprised to be reverted with the edit summary redlinks.. are not to be removed. In an indiscriminate, bare, unreferenced vanity-magnetic list such as this, I couldn't disagree more. Deiz talk 15:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my previous reason in AfD, Asian people have played a significant role in British history and are a sizeable, officially-recognised minority in the UK. Issues of maintenance are not valid grounds for deletion. Qwghlm 15:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And issues of being bare, indiscriminate and redundant to categories? Nobody is denying the impact this group has had, but your rationale seems to have more to do with WP:ILIKEIT, less to do with any of the p's & g's that govern lists on Wikipedia. Deiz talk 15:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not indiscriminate if it's limited to notable people. It's not redundant to categories because it is annotated and is grouped by occupation, which the category isn't (well OK the category is partiallly subcategorized but it shouldn't be, per WP:OCAT). Kappa 00:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to British Asian being a criterion, it's a categorization used by the British census office [1] so its not something arbitrarily made up by WP editors. I suppose the alternative would be breaking down by country, but it might be better to wait until the list gets too big to fit on one page before doing that. Kappa 01:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dont we already have List of British people by <asian country> ? Why is there an need to encompass data from them into this ? (I think the others should be deleted too, but that's another story) Corpx 16:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Dont we already have List of British people by <asian country> ?" Um nope, I don't think we do. Kappa 00:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If this one is deleted, I'll get started on them. Kappa 00:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Source it, and explain how it's not indisciminate. The Transhumanist 17:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LIST & the same rationale for the other lists like this that have come up. Essentially unencyclopedic, unmaintainable. Eusebeus 19:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant with categories. Also too large to maintain with proper sourcing. Hornplease 19:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comment on the British Chinese AfD. Wl219 20:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:LIST. Djmckee1 - Talk-Sign 21:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not that I dislike info about the ancestry, but British Asian people seems kind of broad, encompassing as it does 1/4th of the world, including everyone from "Pakistan, India and Bangladesh (formerly British India)", China (esp. Hong Kong), Malaya, and other former colonies. Might as well have a list of British European people, taking into account all those folks from "the European Continent" Mandsford 00:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone reading the article might have noticed the message 'Those with an East Asian ("Oriental") background are not listed; in British English, "Asian" tends to refer to the South (Indian subcontinent) rather than the East of the continent."' which is cunningly concealed at the top. Kappa 00:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep This article contains useful information found nowhere else in WP: the redlinks to Britsh Asians about whom articles may be written. The nominator for this deletion has twice deleted this material to try to avoid having it here so this very important argument can be made. Hmains 02:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

to elaborate further on why lists should be kept and maintained even in cases where categories exist: 1) the list is annotated with context; 2) the list is in different and more easily changed sort order than found in categories; 3) the list includes, and properly so, items for which there are yet no articles (red links); 4) sections of the list can be more easily linked to from articles (impossible with categories) Hmains 03:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article contains valuable, encyclopedic information that is relied on by our users for their research. Nominating a second time is WP:POINT, shows contempt for our community, and should not be tolerated. Improve, don't delete. Badagnani 02:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and agree with Transhumanist about the need for clearer delineation of the scope--and the need for sourcing. Such ethnic combinations are notable, and if people are prepared to do the work,m the articles can stand up.DGG (talk) 04:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DGG. Scarian ^Talk 00:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find the list very useful to know who does what in the Asian community in Britain. I don't see any other lists categorized in quite the same easy to follow fashion. Uranometria 23:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The category will be enough.--JForget 00:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LIST. Keb25 17:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:LIST. The category will not be enough because it doesn't given any clue as to who they are or why they are notable, it's just a long list of names. Kappa 00:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work with the reds Kappa.. I've got far less of a problem with this if it's kept free of redlinks. When editors restore redlinks and tell me they are not to be removed, then we have cruft problems.. Maybe it'll stick this time. Deiz talk 00:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well in an ideal world an expert editor would be removing all non-notable red links and leaving the notable ones, and actually I have no reason to doubt that was happening here. However if you insist on removing unreferenced red links you can do so per WP:V. Kappa 00:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red lists are allowed everywhere else. WP is full of them, so what's so different about this article? Reverted Uranometria 16:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is full of unverifiable stuff which can be removed by any editor... Kappa 17:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what I see various editors do, once they have found a person to not be notable enough to be listed in the article (such as not in Goggle), is to move that name to the list's talk page and make a section which lists those names and why they have been moved there. This preserves information in WP for possible future use as the facts change (a later Goggle search or some other measure of notability), but keeps the lists up to standard. No harm in keeping such names on the talk page. Thanks. Hmains 03:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - looks ok, but I think maybe the name or membership criteria should be altered to include "notable", "prominent", "famous" or somesuch. Gatoclass 04:32, 8 September 2007 (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.