Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Canadian cities with large Chinese populations

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canadian cities with large Chinese populations

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

List fails (in my opinion) WP:NOT#STATS. I see no indication of why this would warrant a stand-alone article, and at the least would think it would warrant deletion after merging into Chinese Canadian. Before people go pointing at List of U.S. cities with significant Chinese American populations (or other similar "List of X cities with large Y populations" articles) saying that if it exists this article should, I'm not completely convinced that they would warrant an article either, but I'm not going to be the one to nominate them for deletion. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 17:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.

So... which city has the most large Chinese?—RJH (talk) 18:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merging to Chinese Canadian is not at all a bad idea. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Merge if the statistics can be sourced, otherwise delete. What defines a "large" percentage of the population anyway? 1.8% doesn't seem large to me. DigitalC (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete preferred, but merge acceptable, for perhaps top three. Quick check of a couple of the cities indicated that the info was available on the city wiki article, but with better context. I also agree that stand-alone articles on List of X Cities with large Y populations is not a good direction to go. Gierszep (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2011 (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.