Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burmese people in China

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 delete. Sandstein 20:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Burmese people in China[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced WP:OR since its creation. The page has been changed to a redirect on multiple occasions (to Chinese people in Myanmar, a destination that has been argued is not appropriate) but the entirely unsourced article has repeatedly been restored. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Myanmar. Skynxnex (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Was redirected several times to remove unsourced information as per WP:VERIFY. The last time it was further disruptive edited (as per WP:DISRUPTSIGNS), and so now we are here.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting to an inappropriate target, and edit-warring in the process, is disruptive. This is the right place for the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Phil Bridger, I want to be sure that I understand your comment correctly. Are you saying AfD is the right place for the article, or the current state of the article being the right place?

Personally I don't think it was edit warring based on the history. It was approaching it but it wasn't quite there yet I'd say. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that AfD is the right place. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha, thanks for the clarification. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Entirely unsourced original research. I can't find any reliable sources which would confer notability. I can't see any plausible reason in WP:R as to why Chinese people in Myanmar would be an appropriate redirect. WJ94 (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I'd oppose salting this at the moment. This page has not been repeatedly recreated (since it's not yet been deleted); rather, there has been an edit war concerning the redirection or not of the page, resulting in the article being taken to AfD. If this page is repeatedly recreated after being deleted at AfD then it should be salted, but not as a pre-emptive measure. I can plausibly see a new/uninvolved editor creating an article with this title using sources that no one has found yet (perhaps in Chinese or Burmese, as Mccapra says); ideally such an editor should be able to create such an article without any difficulties. WJ94 (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~and salt~~. Unsourced WP:OR. Also a trout to the IP account who took this to AN/I without attempting dispute resolution first. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources are presented in Chinese or Burmese that I can’t identify. Mccapra (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely unreferenced, this AfD seems like simple bureaucracy. Redirect to Burmese people#Burmese_diaspora, if someone want to work on a draft for a proper article it can overwritten later. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I say Burmese people#Burmese_diaspora over Burmese diaspora, as the latter has its own problems and is shorter than the section in Burmese people. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I marked two of the three sources in the article (these are separate form Levivich sources below) as failed verification, the sources are about ethnic groups that exist in China not peoples that have crossed from Myanmar to China. The remaining source is Ethnologue.com, which I don't have access too. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I went ahead and added some sources to the article, I don't think it's enough obviously but I would say it's a start at least. 129.97.124.22 (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(from ANI) It is possible to write a policy-compliant article about Burmese refugees and other Burmese people living in China, similar to Burmese people in Japan, Burmese community in India (and of course, Chinese people in Myanmar); see generally Category:Burmese diaspora and {{Burmese diaspora}}. E.g., The bulk of these Burmese expatriate communities (both forced and voluntary) are found in Thailand (probably approximately 2 million), with significant groups in Bangladesh, Malaysia and Pakistan, smaller communities in India, China and Singapore [1]; Border cities in Yunnan, China, have become attractive destinations among Myanmar migrants [2], also [3] (this article examines Myanmar’s internally displaced persons (IDPs) at the border between Myanmar and China and how they cross the border for new livelihood opportunities), [4] (...7,000-10,000 have sought refuge across the border in Yunnan Province in southwestern China.), [5] (Up to 10,000 Kachins have sought refuge in the southwestern Chinese province of Yunnan), [6] (Before the coronavirus outbreak, about 50,000 people crossed the border every day, including Myanmar people who work or have residency in China), [7], [8]. So, this article could be kept and tagged {{unsourced}}, or redirected to Burmese diaspora and tagged {{r with possibilities}}, but definitely not delete and salt. Levivich (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TNT Salting this article is definitely the wrong move. It would be fair to delete. I'm inclined to WP:TNT and rewrite the article from scratch using reliable sources later. From a quick Google Scholar search, I found a reliable articles about Burmese people in China easily (e.g Border Control, Culture in Taiwan, Human Trafficking and Brides and Borderland peoples). If this article has been a target for disruptive edits, it may be better to expand Burmese diaspora and redirect this page to a new section there.

EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 15:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be very keen to see what you make of it - it does look like there are reliable sources to write a good article. I agree with you on WP:TNT - there's nothing to salvage in the article as it presently exists, so deleting or redirecting seems reasonable unless someone makes some radical changes before the AfD closes. WJ94 (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but don't salt per WP:TNT, I think this may be an appropriate subject for an article, but the current iteration is to fraught with issues as noted above. The redirect that existed here for a while was also not appropriate, but a redlink may be the best way to handle this over any other solution. --Jayron 32 13:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This is mostly unsourced. I agree with much of the discussion and concerns above. In addition to a soft delete, other options are a redirect to Kachin people or Burmese Chinese. Bearian (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Burmese Chinese is a redirect to Chinese people in Myanmar, which is not an appropriate target for a redirect about Burmese people in China. Kachin people is also not an appropriate redirect, as not all Burmese people in China are Kachin. Levivich (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Titles of the form "Ruritanian Lilliputian" are inherently ambiguous. In America such things as "Indian American" are about people of Indian descent living in America, but in Britain (and I think in most of the world, although I stand to be corrected) the equivalent is called "British Indian". Phil Bridger (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2023 (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.