Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern California Chinatowns

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Despite the number of comments and the length of the discussion, there were only 12 participants who registered opinions, and the split was fairly even. Objections concerning content are valid, and there is always room for improvement in any article. Mandsford 17:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Southern California Chinatowns[edit]

Southern_California_Chinatowns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

Strong delete This article is blatantly original research, and even contains within itself a statement that the five so-called Chinatowns it describes are not even called Chinatowns by the Chinese community there (nor anybody else). One editor rightfully, more or less, rightfully tried to redirect this title to Chinatown, Los Angeles but the editor who's been expanding it (DocOfSoc) wants it to remain so he/she can use it as a resource for "improving" the Chinatown, Los Angeles article; how "improving" an article by referencing an article composed out of original research is quite beyond me; similarly on Monterey Park, California there are hosts of citations which are entirely wiki-clones of earlier versions of the same articles (including the Little Taipei article, which is similarly unsourced and/or reflexively-sourced). I don't think this should even be a redirect, I think it shouldn't exist at all, as the notion that there is more than one Chinatown in Southern California is in and of itself purely fiction....there is one author, P.Fong, who described Monterey Park as "the first suburban Chinatown [in Southern California]", but that's an idiomatic and also idiosyncratic use of the term "Chinatown" - and one author does not make a term valid, by any means. But the others are just areas where there are lots of Chinese businesses and/or residents, and the descriptions of such are a muddle of demographic/immigration figures and outright directories of businesses and shopping malls. Wikipedia is not a directory, though clearly there are repeated efforts to turn it into one on various fronts. I was putting off an AfD on this as there are others equally deserving or OR-related deletion; but the gall of this edit was just too much to put up with; aside from WP:Own and using an Original research article as a "resource" for a legitimate page, well, that's just too much to bear with longer....also note that the edit I reversed was a placement of a REDIRECT in front of the lede, without doing anything else to the rest of the page. DocOfSoc goes on about Good Faith and more, and wants proof this is original research; I say "prove that it is NOT original research", which just can't be done. If something's not called a Chinatown (by more than one author, especially), it's just not a Chinatown, period. But to ask for the page to be preserved, in all its OR-ness, so it can be used as a "resource"....that's breaking so many guidelines I don't even know where to start enumerating them....Skookum1 (talk) 06:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Re the validity of the title, the plural conceivably might have included historical Chinatowns in places like Bakersfield, Barstow, San Bernadino, Long Beach or San Diego. But using "Chiantowns" to mean modern commercial plazas/areas which are not known as Chinatowns i.e. by name, or by Little Taipei, is a confabulation of normal English usage. There are also articles such as List of Chinatowns and Chinatown patterns in North America where any and all of this is duplicated and reduplicated, and also wiki-clone-cited and also functioning as business directories. No other region in the US has such an article, eitehr - e.g. Texas Chinatowns, New England Chinatowns, Pacific Northwest Chinatowns. This article fails validity and notability on so many tests it's remarkable it has survived this long; as for DocOfSoc's protest that it should remain a few days so it can be "used" to further OR-ify another article....well, that's what copy-paste and notepad are for.Skookum1 (talk) 06:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have simply and politely asked that this article remain for a couple days as I was using it as a starting point to expand on "Suburban Chinatown", which two editors don't seem to comprehend. It absolutely needs to be deleted but why the big hurry? I asked for Good Faith and was insulted in return. The definition of "Chinatown is: Chinatown |ˈ ch īnəˌtoun| noun a district of any non-Chinese town, esp. a city or seaport, in which the population is predominantly of Chinese origin. Is that so difficult? I would appreciate someone explaining why a simple request of time could not be honored. There is no exact "time limit" in Wiki. Civility would be nice. DocOfSoc (talk) 06:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your expansion and/or creation of the '"Suburban" Chinatowns' section on Chinatown, Los Angeles is ALSO original research and uses reflexive wiki-clone citations which themselves are ALSO original research. As is your interpretation of the one dictionary definition you've trotted out to justify why Chinese-themed/dominant areas are "Chinatowns". Last time I looked, teh San Gabriel Valley wasn't a seaport, also....Skookum1 (talk) 06:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I looked it said city or seaport. I used *no* original research. I was simply using the SOCal article as a place to start as I only began this article yesterday. Delete the darn thing. I have been harassed by the best and am still recovering. Checkout SRQ in ANI. Please just leave me in peace. May God heal your heart. DocOfSoc (talk) 07:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep temporarily Sorry, scratched double vote, didn't realize I put it up here too. I'm not sure what DocOfSoc is doing with this article but she has become a very good writer of articles. There is no reason not extend her good faith about all of this. If the article is useless in say a week then we can ask an administer to speedy delete it. I'd be more than happy to do that myself. --CrohnieGalTalk 10:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment If this were titled Chinese commercial and residential areas in Greater Los Angeles, fine, but it's not - and that title itself is questionable on notability and undue weight grounds (compare Jewish commercial and residential areas in Greater Los Angeles as a concept....). That DocOfSoc wishes to use this material to ADD TO the Chinatown, Los Angeles article in an inappropriate fashion is nowhere near enough grounds to tolerate its further existence; I've once-deleted the "Suburban Chinatowns" synth/or section on that page, as it's also off-topic and not about Chinatown, but also because the "properly cited" citations are largely wiki-clones, and they do not support the claim that these are "Chinatowns" (whether cap-c or small-c). Grayshi has re-deleted that section after it was restored and expanded (OR-fashion) by DocOfSoc. So allowing the continued existence of one OR/synth article so as to enable expansion of another synth/OR section somewhere else....I don't see the point of that at all. Being able to write good articles does not mean that all articles written are good; if they are OR, they clearly are not what should be in WikipediaSkookum1 (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Keep I changed my mind. Nintendude has an excellent point. In fact , I will again volunteer to rewrite it. Taking ONE sentence and extrapolating that these towns don't exist, when my excellent sources say otherwise (see Monterey Park talk) is just argumentative. BTW Synth says a+b=c. My sources conclude a+b=ab. Voila! "Surburban Chinatown"" . Dude and Crohnie agree.DocOfSoc (talk) 19:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Asian Nation, a vague mention of "suburban Chinatown" that is specifically about Monterey Park by a 1987 LA Times article, and some book written by a Timothy Fong are hardly 'excellent' sources. Your reasoning is clearly conflicting with WP:SYNTH; taking your sources and guidelines extremely literally and finding little technicalities does not make them any more Chinatowns than simply places with high Chinese populations. …Grayshi talk ■ my contribs 20:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's needs to be reworked from an essay into an encyclopedia article, but that doesn't mean it warrants deletion. Definitely needs more references, too. Despite all that, I don't see how this is any less significant than any of the other Chinatowns: Category:Chinatowns_in_the_United_States. --NINTENDUDE64 18:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Duh - because it's about places that aren't Chinatowns. And there's no other equivalent regional article, even if this were about the historical Chinatowns (in SLO, Barstow, Bakersfield, Riverside etc); List of Chinatowns in the United States and Chinatown, Los Angeles suffice, and the so-called "New Chinatowns" are ORIGINAL RESEARCH (just as the article says, they aren't even called Chinatowns by Chinese residents).Skookum1 (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's obvious you haven't read any of the points listed by Skookum1. Monterey Park, Arcadia, San Gabriel, etc. are NOT Chinatowns but merely some original research perspective that they are, simply because there is a high Chinese population. Where are all the suburban "Latinotowns"? There's surely a lot of Latinos that are living all over the United States. …Grayshi talk ■ my contribs 20:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The History of the First Suburban Chinatown[1]
Obviously not original research. Karma= not filling out the delete form correctly.DocOfSoc (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:SYNTH again, a+b= ab, the same exact conclusion as *Many* sources. There is no Mexican town , you are talking apples and oranges. My sources are excellent. You should try reading them.
  • Comment - I meant other Chinatown articles, this is obviously an article for less-significant Chinatowns in a single article. If you actually drill down into articles for some cities such as Boston or San Francisco or New York, you'll see tons of articles for neighborhoods and whatnot. If this were the second AfD then my vote would be delete, but this article deserves a chance to be saved. It needs work; it needs references and some cleanup since it looks like an essay right now. --NINTENDUDE64 00:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Discussing Professor Susie Ling’s research on the history of Monterey Park, America’s first suburban Chinatown
Not in the standard tourist guide, Monterey Park is nevertheless recognized by Chinese the world over as America's first "suburban Chinatown",

Recent research suggests that members of these Chinese communities aren't getting dispersed and lost in the 'burbs. Rather, they're 'reconstituting' their Chinatowns in suburban settings...In the face of gentrification, America's Chinatowns set up shop in the suburbs. Chinatown, Suburban Style. Kelsey,Eric. Utne.com - The Utne Reader, September 13, 2007

The Greater Toronto Area in Ontario, Canada, has at least seven Chinatowns (Chinese: 多倫多唐人街/duo lun duo tang ren jie') — four are located within the city's boundaries, while the other three are located in adjacent suburbs.

Markham's experience as a "suburban Chinatown" in similar to that of neighbouring Richmond Hill. The most well-known Chinese mall in Markham is the Pacific Mall, at Kennedy ...

Article from:The Oral History Review Article date:June 22, 1997 Author:Chen, Yong
In the depths of the worst recession in decades, one of Canada's richest men is taking a $1 billion gamble on 'suburban Chinatown' with plans for a massive mall and luxury hotel/condominium complex in the heart of Markham's shopping district.

With a little bit of reading, rather than undocumented personal opinion, anyone can document the use of the term "Suburban Chinatown" and those towns very existence, especially in Los Angeles County...= DocOfSoc (talk) 02:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FACT: Markham, Agincourt and Richmond Hill have all REJECTED the use of teh term "Chinatown", which in Greater Toronto refers to the Spadina/Dundas area; the same is true of Golden Village in Richmond BC....part of the reason for this on the one hand is the resistance of non-Chinese in the area (not just whites, but other visible minorities) to having their communities labelled Chinatowns, in name or promotion; Calgary's "new" Chinatown twenty years ago was a few busineses; now a giant mall with accompanying dragon lampposts but that's a different matter and it was created AND BUILT as a Chinatown ON TOP OF teh site of an original Chinatown. And it appears to me that you've been "reading" wiki-clone sites, which re-circulate the original research material that got compiled here and on related pages - very pointedly http://www.famouschinese.com is a wiki-clone and its content lifted directly from Wikipedia. That this notion of "suburban chinatown" has been used idiomatically by academics studying Chinese settlement patterns does not mean that society at large accepts these places as Chinatowns, in name or in concept, even if some academics - and business people -like to promote them as such. Note my use of small-c chinatown. The presence of Chinese businesses (w/wo residents) does not make a place a Chinatown, escept in academic constructs or in marketing promotion, and is often rejected by non-Chinese residents as nothing more than hype and fiction. And there's a BIG difference bewteen somewhere NAMED Chinatown, and somewhere that a write or business prmoter calls "a chinatown".....it's not a widespread usage, and I dispute your claim that Chinese "all over North America" acknowledge Monterey Park as "the first suburban Chinatown".....it's overblown claims like that that are your own karma here; no doubt you'll find something you read that supports it, but chances are it's another wiki-clone like those which littered the Monterey Park article so extensively....."if you self-reference something six times it's true".....well, it's true that it's a tautology and original research, at least, even if it feeds and propagates upon itself....Skookum1 (talk) 01:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentI had not edited Monterey Park since last August until you brought it up. I dispute your claim that it is "Littered" with wiki-clones.; if there are any , why haven't you fixed them? You have provided no resouces for any of your claims. Both Dr. Fong and Dr. Ling are respected professors and writers. I repeat for the third and last time, I did no original research. This is turning into one of those useless and laborious discussions. Your verbose paragraph above violates No personal attacks and is lacking in Good Faith. As an academic, I can turn the article you want to delete into a decent article. You said " That this notion of "suburban chinatown" has been used idiomatically by academics studying Chinese settlement patterns does not mean that society at large accepts these places as Chinatowns, in name or in concept, even if some academics...like to promote them as such. " I believe Academics has a place in Wikipedia." and in Society. It is now up to others to decide the outcome. BTW, I did say "Snookums" tongue in cheek, and I apologize if it offended you. Sincerely...DocOfSoc (talk) 03:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Idiosyncratic uses are not common uses; that these places are explicitly NOT named Chinatown, or that their inhabitants don't use or like the term, is sufficient to indicate that an academic affectation-usage is NOT enough to warrant a title using that meaning. Chinese commercial and residential areas in Greater Los Angeles is what this is about, but even so it comes off like a Directory (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a directory. "Chinatown" in North American culture and historical context has a specific meaning, and so-called "Suburban Chinatowns" are not part of it; many of those are explicitly in areas that are not exclusively Chinese nor want to be, also. The further issue here is that this is content-forking, even if these were legitimate "Chinatowns"; why an article on Southern California? Not on the Bay Area? Greater Seattle? Chinatowns in Metropolitan New York?? (though there have indeed been efforts to expand Chinatown, New York in that direction. If the logic applied to Monterey Park or Milpitas were applied to Vancouver, the whole city woudl technically be a Chinatown, BUT IT's NOT. As for the Monterey Park article, I took out all the wiki-clone citations (still not sure about at-usa.com but those probably are too) and put in "fact" templates; NB instead of deleting it all outright, as should be for unreferenced original research. This problem is even worse on [[Chinatowns in Canada and the United States], which is rank original research and includes suppositions and definitions and even comparison tables which are all uncited, and uncitable (except using wiki-clones). This article, if it's to survive, should have a much larger section on each of the historical Chinatowns (now vanished) than on any of the "invented" and re-branded "Chinatowns" you seem to want it to be about (but which it shouldnt' be about). But I daresay that if a more accurate title of Chinese commercial and residential districts in Greater Los Angeles were to be adopted, with content just as it is (with valid citations, rather than citations used to create/support SYNTH), it wouldn't last very long at all, as it would come off like a directory. And there's the other issue, too, as in at least one case, I've forgotten which, the area you claim is a chinatown is actually officially labelled "Little India", even having a gate-sign to that effect.....See btw http://www.americanchinatown.com which DOES cover REAL Chinatowns, including the new "invented" one in Las Vegas (which is admissible because it is CALLED Chinatown).Skookum1 (talk) 04:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

idiomatic |ˌidēəˈmatik| adjective 1 using, containing, or denoting expressions that are natural to a native speaker : distinctive idiomatic dialogue. 2 appropriate to the style of art or music associated with a particular period, individual, or group : a short Bach piece containing lots of idiomatic motifs. DERIVATIVES idiomatically |-ik(ə)lē| |ˈˈɪdiəˈmødək(ə)li| adverb ORIGIN early 18th cent.: from Greek idiōmatikos ‘peculiar, characteristic,’ from idiōma (see idiom ).

idiosyncratic |ˌidēəsi ng ˈkratik; ˌidē-ō-| adjective of or relating to idiosyncrasy; peculiar or individual : she emerged as one of the great idiosyncratic talents of the Nineties. DERIVATIVES idiosyncratically |-ik(ə)lē| |ˈˈɪdiəsɪŋˈˈkrødək(ə)li| adverb DocOfSoc (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC) ORIGIN late 18th cent.: from idiosyncrasy , on the pattern of Greek sunkratikos ‘mixed together.’ and again you cite no sourcesDocOfSoc (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Little India [[3]]DocOfSoc (talk) 05:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification The article will be rewritten to make clear it is parrts of Cities referred to, not whole cities ( Maybe a title change?)

Most, if any, wiki-clone refs were not made by me if anyone had checked.DocOfSoc (talk) 09:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If this is something that someone is actively working on, but it isn't fit for the mainspace (yet), would it be appropriate to userfy? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • reply As uncited original research/synth, NO.Skookum1 (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • reply No to what? I do not know who's "original research" this was. A couple days ago, I began to attempt to rewrite and wikify entire article and was bombarded by 2 editors, who after five years decided the article needs to be immediately deleted. I would like the opportunity to proceed with this article as all my other efforts were deleted with violations of good faith and civility. This article needs a total rewrite and i think that it is mandatory the discussion should include the Wikipedia:WikiProject Asian Americans, before any decisions are made. I am offering again to rewrite the entire article with input from the above mentioned wikiproject !! I have already written a small portions of the article on another page that was unceremoniously deleted. I do not understand the motives of editors who would mock and block an attempt to improve an article.DocOfSoc (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's 5 years worth of original research by Wikipedia editors. There simply is no such thing as a "suburban Chinatown" and deleting things that do not comply with Wikipedia guidelines is not considered a breach of good faith. As for WP:CIVIL violations... you really shouldn't be calling the kettle black. …Grayshi talk ■ my contribs 20:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The material on the other article was ALSO deleted because it ALSO was original research; just as you wanted to use this to add original research to the Chinatown, Los Angeles article. None of it is acceptable, ditto your cutesy nickname for me and the "karma" comment. You seem more obsessed with WP:Civil and WP:Good faith than with WP:OR and [[WP:Synth}} and also WP:VS and WP:RS. And as this page is tagged with WP:Asian Americans (as also with WP:California and WP:Ethnic groups any of those editors who have this on their watchlist are already aware of this, or had the option to be. And the special interests of WP:Asian Americans do not trump guidelines such as WP:OR and WP:Synth. This is a matter of legitimacy of content, and it fails that test. Instead of being on ACTUAL Chinatows in Southern California, the previous editors who created/expanded it and also yourself are wanting to re-brand areas which are NOT called or perceived as "Chinatown" by a more general notion of what you'd like "Chinatowns" to mean (but which that term doesn't). The historical Chinatowns - actual Chinatowns - in Southern California were many, and they are accounted for on both Chinatowns in Canada and the United States and on List of Chinatowns in the United States#California. There is nothing special about those in Southern California to warrant a completely separate article on them, as this might have been had it been written properly - it would have wound up being merged anyweay, if it had. but it's about something very different, not about Chinatowns as that term is properly used....Skookum1 (talk) 02:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • NB in addition to the parallel AfD on Chinatown patterns in North America I have also added OR and fact tags on Chinatown, Flushing and Chinatown, Brooklyn, as they also appear to be "invented" uses of the term Chinatown, and are not what those locations are actually called.Skookum1 (talk) 02:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:SYNTHESIS. Abductive (reasoning) 04:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, that the gentleman in Canada, who is 'not clear on the concept' of Suburban Chinatowns has added Flushing to his quest to eliminate the term. If one goes to the first page of the excellent text book [ttp://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1412905567/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_2?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=1566391237&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1CMBYVTSDBX2T84Q8S2V] the term and the experience is very well explained. As explained in the article, the "Valley Blvd. Corridor" is the highly visible experience of parts of cities that contain Suburban Chinatowns. DR. Fong's highly respected and nationally award winning text: The First Suburban Chinatown: The Remarking of Monterey Park, California (Asian American History & Culture [4] has been denigrated by editors Skookum1 and Grayshi, who have obviously not bothered to open it, much less read it. They have simply decided unilaterally that there is no such thing as this commonly used designation.
    • Comment. This "gentleman in Canada" is insistent than using "Chinatown" for modern-era Chinese commercial and population concentrations is NOT valid, NOT appropriate, and is NOT "commonly used". In Monterey Park's case, even the Chinese community does not use, or want, the term "Chinatown", which in Greater LA means ONE PLACE ONLY (Chinatown, Los Angeles). Your pretense that what you are creating/expanding is valid according to Wikipedia guidelines is specious and repetitive in its enthusiastic support for writing original research essays in order to expound a neologistic meaning for the word "Chinatown".Skookum1 (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "History of Asians in the San Gabriel Valley [5] by Dr. Susie Ling is
an easy and enjoyable read discussing the subject of 'Suburban Chinatowns," quote: Professor Susie Ling of has just written a very interesting and informative history of Asians in the San Gabriel Valley, which dates back even earlier than the 1965 Immigration Act and how the first suburban Chinatown in the country developed there, [6] with further extapolation, and apparently not even perused, has also been denigrated by the above two editors who unfortunately have closed minds. As a former teacher, I am appalled at their obstinate and ignorant conclusion and refusal to budge on their mission. As someone who drives down the "Valley Corridor" every day, (yes OR) I invite them to take that journey or or what do they want? Pictures? to open their eyes and maybe their minds. Unlike Grayshi's claim, my degree in Sociology is perfect to discuss this portion of Society. The disrespect for my 14 years of study is quite beyond Civility. I only discovered this article a few weeks ago and was about to improve it, 100% when assailed by these individuals with their own agenda. In glancing at Skookum1's ANI files, I find he has driven other editors away from other articles several times. I Invite you to peruse those before any decisions are made. Simply, I am quite confident in my knowledge and education including "Surburban Chinatowns" and refuse to be driven away. There is no consensus here anyway, and I again invite anyone to at least glance at the references I have provided. I know this is a bit long, but time is "a wastin". TY for your consideration. DocOfSoc (talk) 06:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment re your comment "Simply, I am quite confident in my knowledge and education including "Surburban Chinatowns" and refuse to be driven away." You are not a reliable source (see WP:RS and it's already clear that you're not a verifiable source WP:VS because you're constantly making original research/synth conclusions and expansions. YOUR definition/meaning of Suburban Chinatown does not have a consensus, and that you will "not be driven away" indicates your stubbornness and intent to keep on with your essay-writing/travelogue campaign. You've been playing WP:Own with this article since you started expanding it, and have ignored regular content guidelines and run willy-nilly in writing more and more OR and Synth. A consensus may not be reached here, but these don't run on consensus, they are decided (properly) on what's right and what's wrong. And your claim that places that aren't called Chinatown should be called Chinatowns because you think so just doesn't wash.Skookum1 (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Granted, there's a lot of OR-like essay material there, but much of it is factual and descriptive of physical locations. I suggest that we removed the unsourced opinions, and build the article from a solid base, leaving the article to supplement Chinatowns in Canada and the United States. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the others who have said keep, I think that there should be at least some time given for a rewrite prior to damanding it be deleted. Please let's give the editor an opportunity to do the rewrite she wants to do. It's her time she's using so let her do it. I see no harm in this option. --CrohnieGalTalk 12:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. You're supporting the bad problem, Crohnie- that the work that DocOfSoc "wants to do" is nothing but original research and confabulation.Skookum1 (talk) 20:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It seems to me a lot of people here aren't comprehending one of the core issues/problems with this article - the original research/synthesis claim that new-era Chinese commercial and residential areas are, in fact, "Chinatowns", which isn't borne out by any of the citations and in fact by more than one of them is rejected. If there's to be a rewrite, then all the "junk" material taht's little more than a directory of commercial areas as opposed to real Chiantowns should get junked, and the historic Chinatowns that DID EXIST in Riverside, San Luis Obisop etc should be included. And again, thre's the content-fork issue - why does Southern California need its own article on Chinatowns?? Even REAL Chinatowns (not wannabe ones)? List of Chinatowns in the United States#California adn Chinatowns in Canada and the United States already cover this. This article was written as an original-research "personal reflection or essay" and dnoes't meet any criteria for notability, and defies and overrides all of WP:Or and WP:Synth by allowing the use of "chinatown" in the nouveau/neologism manner it's being used here (which it isn't by the public, or by the media or indeed by the ccommunities named/affected).Skookum1 (talk) 00:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have yet to give one ciataion to back up your null hypothesis. You continue to just repeat ypurself. All of the above paragraph reeks of OR and personal opinion. I am curious to know, how, sitting superciliously up in Canada , you know what the locals call the pieces of Chinatowns i.e. "The Valley Corridor." I would really like to know, since my hypothesis is well grounded and the much respected editor Ohconfucius stated his opinion most intelligently and knowledgeably. BTW Nouveau/neologism is a tad redundant. DocOfSoc (talk) 08:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 07:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Encyclopedias should be for solid facts, not for essays. True, there are lots of Chinese people living in Southern California. Also true that lots of them own businesses, and there are places with many Chinese businesses in close proximity to each other. Also true that areas where this is common can be identified by census data, newspaper stories, and other reliable sources. Putting it all together to create a topic like "Southern California Chinatowns" seems like original research and not the stuff of encyclopedias, which should give the facts on topics that others have already found to be notable. -Steve Dufour (talk) 11:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (struck as an accidential double iVote. --CrohnieGalTalk 20:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC) ) As I ripped into the article for several hours, I found a very nice essay, obviously written by someone for whom English is a second language. I made a large dent in starting to bring the article up to standard, but I realized that Skookum1's and Grayshi's problem was not the unfortunate essay itself, but that they are against the entire concept of "Suburban Chinatowns," a personal opinion is a pretty lousy reason to delete an article with a possibly bright future.[reply]

Steve if you would please look at what I achieved in one whole night, you might change your vote to keep. It still needs a ton of work, but it is doable and hey, it's my 'hood! ;-) DocOfSoc (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      • Comment. That it's "your hood" is no reason for you to author essay-like content which is not encyclopedia in nature, and which extends the normal meaning of "Chinatown" to places that aren't CALLED Chinatown (T. Fong is not enough, and YOU are not a reliable source). You're defending the existence of this article because "you've put a lot of work into it", but it's the wrong kind of work. And your claim that Grayshi's and mine's (and not just ours) position that you're misusing the word "Chinatown" in a neologistic/synth fashion is NOT "personal opinion". It is FACT. "Chinatown" means A PLACE CALLED CHINATOWN, or at best "Little China" or "China Alley" or "Shanghai Alley". It does not mean strip malls marketed at new-era Chinese immigrants, especially for areas that have other-ethnic business and residents. Re-branding places with epithets concocted by synth/OR is not Wikipedia's job, but you're certainly making it yours....somewhere here (which I can't find just now) you also fielded YET ANOTHER new term "pocket Chinatowns" and now apparently want to map every bit of Chinese commercial presence in the SGV. That you can't see that that's original research, especially when you apply the name "pocket Chinatowns", is even worse than your attempt to "prove" your "hypothesis"...even that you use those words is a demonstration of WP:SYNTH.....Skookum1 (talk) 20:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please write a book about your community, you might even make a few bucks selling copies. I hear that Amazon has a good self-publishing program where they print up and send out books as they are ordered. -Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your work has done nothing to address the main issues of the article and the idea of "suburban Chinatown" itself. In fact, you've turned the first few sections into full-on essays with tones that are inappropriate for Wikipedia. Write about these "Chinatowns" in the SGV area in a book instead, as Kitfoxxe said. …Grayshi talk ■ my contribs 20:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment It's why I deleted those sections outright....you'll note that my inclusion of the historical chinatowns in the cut-down version was blanked in the UNDO by DocOfSoc, who clearly doesn't care about the hsitorical Chinatowns and is more intent on painting collections of wonton restaurants as if they were legitimate, named "Chinatowns". I'm not going to engage in an edit war, but the trimmed, FACTUAL version is what this article should be if it remains; otherwise it needs renaming to Chinese commercial and residential districts in Greater Los Angeles.Skookum1 (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why don't we just change the name of the ARTICLE to "Chinatowns of the San Gabriel Valley" and let me finish the darn thing. SGV is a huge
collection of "pocket" Chinatowns" HUGE! I write for Wikipedia. I have been published BTW, not my intent here, but gee Thanks! DocOfSoc (talk) 12:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Really, like, way too much detail for an encyclopedia article. This is more like a neighborhood guide. You could have articles on, for instance, Polish communities in the Chicago area, Korean communities in Washington state, French Canadian communities in New England, and on and on with any combination of ethnic group and geographical area. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Notification I hope someone notices that DocOfSoc and Crohnie have both voted twice. DocOfSoc voted early on with "Strong Keep" and again this morning voted "Keep". Crohnie voted early on with "Temporarily Keep" and again a couple of days ago with "Keep". How many votes does one get to make? Lazuli Bunting (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notification I have removed the bulk of ALL the original research-cum-essay materials from the article, which have been extensively expanded by DocOfSoc during the course of this debate. The article in its current state lists only the main LA Chinatown and now (for the first time) mentions the historical Chinatowns in Bakersfield, San Luis Obispo, Calico, Riverside etc. It still remains a content-fork but (for now, pending probable attempts to re-insert the original research material...) and is redundant with other articles, but at present it is at least what its title says it's about, and isn't a guide to Chinese shopping areas or Chinese populations in various cities, which it shouldn't be. Teh rationale that says these areas are Chinatowns is equivalent to saying that Chicago is a Polishtown or Boston an Irishtown, or the Upper East Side in New York a Jewish ghetto.Skookum1 (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notification Skookum1 practically BLANKED the article and turned it into a useless stub which I have reverted. Articles under discussion are not to be wantonly destroyed. It apparently needs to be protected until this discussion is completed.DocOfSoc (talk) 06:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC) In re-reading what I am attempting to construct, I do suggest the title be changed to "Chinatowns in San Gabriel Valley", a significant enclave of this population.DocOfSoc (talk) 07:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I did NOT "practically blank" it or "turn it into a useless stub", I made it conform to its title and stripped away all the very extensive original research/synth and OFF-TOPIC materials you have persisted in adding and expanding while this debate is going on. What you have done by reverting my correction of the article is to persist with turning this article into Chinese commercial and residential areas in Greater Los Angeles, and that's all it is, and as such it's an essay, not properly cited, and built on "and oh gee, there's some more stores over here". Your ongoing equation of one author's parabolic usage in combination with an incomplete dictionary definition to yield "Monterey Park = Chinatown" is utterly and totally WP:SYNTH and WP:Original research.Skookum1 (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Several neighboring cities in the San Gabriel Valley have evolved into a concentrated population of Chinese nationals and Chinese-Americans. Numerous sources refer to Monterey Park and its neighbors as a Chinatown. It might be possible to find a better title, but the topic is legitimate and covered in reliable sources.   Will Beback  talk  04:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment A lot of those "numerous sources", here and in the LA Chinatown and Monterey Park articles, were Wiki-clones. Other than Fong, who else were you thinking of?Skookum1 (talk) 04:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have posted ten sources, none of which are wikiclones, on talk:Monterey Park, California, which call that place a "Chinatown". The San Gabriel Valley is unusual in that it has an enclave of Chinese people which is spread acorss multiple cities. That's why this article makes sense.   Will Beback  talk  02:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentThis has been discussed ad nauseum. I have presented numerous sources besides the nationally recognized Dr. Fong, just scroll up, they are NOT wiki clones. You just continue with your extremely narrow personal opinion. As I have said, I am rewriting this article as a separate entity, entirely different from my original concept of integrating it. DocOfSoc (talk) 05:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I've had a long look at the "national" sources you're talking about, and none are in contexts validating the use of "Chinatown" as a common descriptor for such places, only in an abstract analytical/comparative sense that IS NOT COMMON USAGE. The nouveau use of "Chinatown" for suburban areas with Chinese-language stores is NOT the proper usage, and there are cites which dispute that usage and over and over again in all metropolitan areas "Chinatown" refers to somewhere specific, and is not used in a general sense. And again, "your original conception" of this article is a rambling essay talking about populations, the number of stores etc, and there are cites to that effect; there are NOT valid, contextual citations proving that referring to places like Monterey Park as Chinatowns are common usage. OR EVEN HOW PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE REFER TO IT. Oh, except for you, since it's your "'hood".Skookum1 (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • PS - COMMENT Your attempt to close this discussion yourself is one of the most extreme examples of gall and wiki-arrogance I've ever seen, and a rather vulgar display of WP:Own, as are your complaints that you want to "edit it in peace" (meaning you want the right to keep on building your original research empire). Add on top of that your dumping a definition of "confabulation" in the middle of a discussion on my talkpage about a completely different topic, in reply to a now-confused editor who thought you were responding to him......talk about bad karma.....Skookum1 (talk) 18:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentYou (DocOfSoc) and others here keep on claiming that there are valid ciations for the usage, but as per my comments on the talkpage about Rowland Park, nowhere in the cites given for that section does it say that Rowland Park is a Chinatown, or is CALLED Chinatown. You just keep on adding more and more original research and want to be left in peace to "edit" (add) yet more, claiming that one cite about one place extends across the board as you see fit to extend it. That's WP:Synth, and WP:OR, and continues to be.Skookum1 (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • These comments from User:maven of Media are worth noting by all those who assert that the references given for this usage are valid.Skookum1 (talk) 22:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that pointer. The cited book calls Monterey Park a new Chinatown.[7]   Will Beback  talk  02:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But, like Fong, it's a paradigm, more of an adjective, a transitory usage. And it says nothing about Rowland Heights. Other sources say, as I remember in one, that they're not comfortable using "Chinatown" for Monterey Park, or that (as maven of Media notes) Chinatown as a name does not refer to just any commercial area with lots of Chinese businesses; if that's were the case twenty neighbourhoods in Vancouver would be "Chinatowns", and they're not, not in name, not in concept. That some authors indulge in the neologistic usage meaning "a concentration of Chinese strip malls and tract-housing residents", that's not the most common usage, and it's certainly a disputed usage. Not even residents of Monterey Park refer to their town as Chinatown or as a Chinatown (and that would go especially, I imagine, for people of other origins whose home it is also). The mingling of the two concepts gets really fuzzy - "oh there's a few Chinese stores at hte corner of such-and-so" is the kind of thing this article is getting peppered with, all contingent on the SYNTH decision that a few references -= including those taken out of context or as in one case was a food section culinary travelogue - as validations for a usage that MOST PEOPLE DON"T ACCEPT OR USE. How to cite that? Ask Monterey Park city council what their citizens think, and what they call their place....this page and others like it anyway wind up as listings of which restaurants and stores are where; it's also a WP:Wikipedia is not a directory problem as well as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. There's a BIG difference hetweeen a figurative sense of Monterey Park, in some writings, being referred to as "a new Chinatown" (and they probably cite or feed off each other), and a sense of somewhere like Chinatown, Los Angeles or Chinatown, Bakersfield which really ARE "Chinatowns in Southern California" - not just mis-applications of the term, based in a figurative usage, as if it were ordinary English WHICH IT's NOT......Skookum1 (talk) 03:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand the confusion here. One way of defining "Chinatown" is to say that "A Chinatown is an ethnic enclave of overseas Chinese people". Another to define it is "A Chinatown is a place called 'Chinatown', regardless of its demographics". I'm basing my opinion on the first definition, and one sources that say these communities are Chinatowns and have ethnic enclaves of Chinese people. If we use the second definition, then we'd need to remove several articles from Category:Chinatowns, including Van Wesenbekestraat, Golden Village (Richmond, British Columbia) and all of Category:Historical Chinatowns in British Columbia. I think that interpretation is too narrow, and doesn't reflect reality or reliable sources.
Further, the issue of whether to call the article "Southern California Chinatowns" or something different is not what we're here to decide. "Chinese enclaves in the San Gabriel Valley" would work just as well, though with a change in scope. The topic is identifiable, referred to often in various ways in sources, and worth an article.
As for the Monterey Park city council, go ahead and ask them. Here's their website: City of Monterey Park : 市議會.   Will Beback  talk  08:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
big deal, the Cities of Vancouver, Burnaby, Richmond, Toronto and so on also have Chinese-language pages, and Chinese-ethnic councillors....I searched for "Chinatown" on teh MOnterey Park site, and there are six instances, all of them referring to the Chinatown Service Centre, which is located in Chinatown, Los Angeles, although there's a branch addressed listed in Monterey Park. None of this is proof that Monterey Park is a Chinatown or, again, called a Chinatown. It only means there's a service organization in Chinatown, Los Angeles that has a branch office in the San Gabriel Valley. And yeah, there's a good case to remove Golden Village from the Chinatown listings, particularly because the city and residents of Richmond didn't want the designation, and because "Chinatown" in Greater Vancouver refers specifically to the old downtown, historical Chinatown (even though most Chinese people and businesses aren't there). Likewise I trimmed those other articles of their rambling original research material on Agincourt and Markham and Richmond Hill which had been included (and shouldn't have been). And as for Category:Historical Chinatowns in British Columbia articles in there have sections describing, or mentioning the historical Chinatowns, and yeah there's an issue whether places like Richfield or Circle City, which for many years were 100% Chinese, are Chinatowns or "places with significant Chinese populations". Barkerville, which is in that category, has a large Chinatown (as part of its museum-town) and the historical fact is that the REST of Barkerville was where most Chinese lived; Chinatown is just where the benevolent association halls were. Lillooet, Penticton, Nanaimo, New Westsminster - all had bona fide Chinatowns (Penticton's was called Shanghai Alley, Lillooet's included a street named China Alley). So what do you mean all of that category should be deleted?Skookum1 (talk) 19:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW the Chinese characters you've submitted don't - repeat don't - say "Chinatown" (see the characters on the Chinatown page). They say the Chinese rendering, presumably phonetically, of "Monterey Park".Skookum1 (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by a "bona fide" Chinatown? If an settlement is a Chinese ethnic enclave, is it a "bona fide" Chinatown, regardless of name? Or, is the only real "Chinatown" a place called "Chinatown", regardless of who actually lives there?   Will Beback  talk  22:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Skookum is referring to the actual definition of a Chinatown in the historical sense, as in a recognizably distinct area of a settlement that people would commonly call by that name.. If you go to the Spadina "Chinatown" in Toronto, there really is no question, same with the (flagging) Vancouver one. I haven't really seen a reliable definition for "ethnic enclave" mentioned here, and that is why this came here in the first place - assuming the "D" is "AFD" could mean discussion. Does the article serve it's named purpose? Franamax (talk) 02:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep though I would recommend renaming it to something like "Chinese communities in the San Gabriel Valley" to make the title more in line with the content of the article. Whether they're called "Chinatowns" or not the concentration of Chinese in this area is a notable topic and the article needs improvement, not deletion. Kmusser (talk) 18:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment' Without being a travelogue or a directory, that's hard to do - and still, does it warrant a special page separate from Chinatowns in Canada and the United States or List of Chinatowns#California? Otherwise a plethora of articles on Chinese commercial areas in the Puget Sound region, Chinese commercial areas in the Bay Area, Chinese commercial areas in Florida, etc etc...Skookum1 (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not hard to do, we have plenty of articles on ethnic enclaves that are just fine, just because this one needs help doesn't mean it can't be done, see Poles in Chicago or Cuban migration to Miami. As you've so passionately pointed out "Chinatowns" and concentrations of Chinese aren't necessarily the same thing so I'm not sure on whether the existence of the lists of Chinatowns is relevant. There probably could be similar articles for other regions, whether other Chinese enclaves are notable would have to be judged on a case by case basis - this one is the largest in the U.S., has several books written about it and is clearly a topic of academic study. If Chinese in the Puget Sound region has gotten similar attention from academia or the press it probably should have an article.Kmusser (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's odd about this being the largest - there's an ongoing campaign on various Chinatown articles to maintain that New York's agglomeration of Chinese settlement areas is 'the largest Chinatown". If this wsre retitled Chinese commercial areas and residential settlements in Southen California, fine, BUT IT's NOT. And with this "restoration" of material deleted earlier by an IP User, apparently from LA and familiar with Rosemead, Rowland Heights etc, has restored "junk" material, mostly uncited, a lot of it travelogue and "oh, from here to here there's chinese stores". The citation on the Temple City section is only a link about the concentration of bridal shops there, which is indeed all that section is about; yet it's included because the restoring editor maintains it's a Chinatown; as if bridal stores serving Chinese customers were sufficient proof. Also in look at the refs on teh SF Chinatown page I noticed http://www.chinatownology.com which lists chinatowns worldwide, and doesn't name Monterey Park or any other ethnoburb, and spells out a definition of Chinatown that's at marked difference from the one being asserted OR/Synth-style here. Change the article name ot something more accurate; fine; but this title should not be a redirect to it - if it's not deleted outright it should be a listing of bona fide historical Chinatowns (E.g. Bakersfield, Riverside, San Luis Obispo, Calico etc). Until the thesis that "Chinese stores = Chinatown" is dispensed with, the original research content of this article will continue to bloat and grow. And yeah, there's History of Chinese immigration to Canada and a US counterpart article (both need trimming and maybe splitting; the former tends to be about Head Tax redress and ongoing current immigration policy changes/issues). Chinese commercial and residential areas in Greater Vancouver -- sheesh, don't you see where this is headed? And is such content really encyclopedic, and how is it kept from being a travelogue and business directory/promotion (= spam)?Skookum1 (talk) 21:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I should have said most concentrated, NYC and the Bay Area have larger total numbers but Chinese remain a small percentage of the total population, here the percentage Chinese is much higher with Monterey Park being the highest at 41%. I absolutely agree that the current title is misleading. Disregard the current state of the article - why wouldn't ethnic enclaves be an encyclopedic topic? Yeah people need to watch it to keep it free of spam, the listings of businesses need to go, but that applies to every article that's a geographic location. Kmusser (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • List of named ethnic enclaves in North America is problematic/ see its talkpage. There's also a discussion at WP:CANTALK about what to do with list of Chinese cities with large Chinese populations and related matters.....Edmonton and Winnipeg have huge Ukrainian concentrations - but are they "Uketowns" or ethnic enclaves? International Falls is heavily Swedish, the Lakehead has a large number of Finns...does that make them "ethnic enclaves"? Vancouver's North Shore has a powerful, highly visible Persian element - that doesn't make it "Little Tehran", nor would anybody in their right mind describe West Van or North Van as ethnic enclaves. Trail is famously Italian in origin; but it's not an ethnic enclave.....anyway look at that ethnic enclave page; someone just added Chicago as a "Native American" one because it has 50,000 native residents....but I dread to think of applying DocofSoc's criteria for "Chinatown" to Greater Vancouver, wherein every corner store and group of Chinese restaurants at, say, 152nd and 88th in Surrey, would be included in the article....Skookum1 (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Do you mean the Safeway or BC Liquor? The Save-On Foods or Blockbuster Video across the Fraser Highway? Cobbler, tend well to thine last. Images on request. Franamax (talk) 02:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a while since I've been in Surrey, I just picked street numbers out of my head....I know somewhere along 108th just shy of Guildford there's a Chinese corner store/market and a few other businesses maybe on the south side, maybe at 150th; that's the kind of thing I'm meaning; maybe I could have better said Joyce & Kingsway or Knight & Kingsway, or that one complex at 41st and Granville - someone had at one point tried to have Metrotown on the Chinatowns lists, by the way - by DocOfSoc's loose definition, Oakridge, South Fraser and First and Renfrew and several other areas should be in article named Chinatowns in Greater Vancouver....Skookum1 (talk) 04:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to decide that, that's for outside Reliable Sources to determine - ethnic demographics is not an especially obscure subject, what do books on the topic use as a definition of an enclave? That's what we should be using as well. And besides that not every enclave would necessarily be notable, we'd still need to apply the same notability criteria that we do to everything. Somehow I don't think 152nd & 88th would have books written about it. Kmusser (talk) 03:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment DocOfSoc asserted in an edit comment that this morning's blankings of original research/badly cited content were an "obvious sock puppet" (DocOfSoc has since restored all said blankings)....I looked up that IP account via geolocate and it's in Chester, New York (see here). So who's "obviously" in Chester, New York, who would have "created" their IP address "for this purpose"??Skookum1 (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't the place to deal with sock issues. That said, the IP also seems interested in Vancouver.[8] Geolocation can make mistakes and editors can use proxies to hide their location. I suggest that everyone try to calm down and avoid making accusations against each other.   Will Beback  talk  02:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All this debate tells me that there's some fundamental value to article. I say leave it be. jengod (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the above user is the original creator of the article and was WP:CANVASSed by DocOfSoc to comment on the AfD. …Grayshi talk ■ my contribs 21:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment The existence of a lengthy (generally repetitive) debate is no validation for the "fundamental value" of the article anyway.Skookum1 (talk) 22:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I guess for the same reason that someone in Canada is obsessed with the destruction of the term: "Southern California Chinatowns". :-D DocOfSoc (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/reply I'm against the destruction of the English language, and nouveau word-uses meant to advance a campaign; the campaign being to brand what are properly styled ethnoburbs with a label that has a very specific history and locational context in North American culture. I'm not against the destruction of the term "Southern California Chinatowns" so long as it's about ACTUAL CHINATOWNS. You seem totally disinterested in the historical, REAL, Chinatowns that have a history and an identity and went by that name - but are insistent that new commercial and settlement colonies are Chinatowns because you took this one author, added context from another, referenced the locations of some stores, and ignored the fact that Monterey Park does not promote or identify itself as a Chinatown. "Someone in Canada" is from a place, and more than one place, where Chinatowns are and were historical realities, and where there is also widespread new-Chinese settlement/commerce. Only one of the many places they predominate in is "Chinatown". ONLY ONE. Get it? Chinatown is a name, and a particular type of commercial/cultural concentration and it doesn't include suburban strip developments or tract housing. Richmond makes a point of not calling Golden Village "Chinatown" (there had been a historic Chinatown, at least one, in Steveston at Richmond's SW tip, however. Both of my home towns had Chinatowns Mission and Lillooet, and so did New Westminster where I've also lived, and here in Penticton there was Shanghai Alley, which is one of the "variant names" Chinatowns in their heyday were called. Victoria and Vancouver still have Chinatowns, both of which I'm familiar with; half a dozen major neighbourhoods, commercial and residential, I can think of in Vanouver (City of Vancouver) alone meet your criteria of "waht constitutes a Chinatown", as do vast areas of Richmond, some of Surrey and Coquitlam, and increasingly in the Fraser Valley towns and in Kelowna. But none of the new "concentrations" are called Chinatown, nor would anybody, including the businesses and residents who work and live in them, would think to either. Chinatown is a place, an identity. Not a rebranding campaign. The IP user you accused of being a sockpuppet took out stuff,as I had before him, which had nothing to do with Chinatowns, it had to do with where Chinese businesses and facilities were; Temple Park is cited only by a bridal shop, and the section seems to exist to promote that bridal "district" seems important enough for you to restore that you insult the people trying to take it out as both WP:OR and WP:Spam, which is exactly what it is. "Someone in Canada" tried to turn this article into what its title says it's about, and you reversed that, screaming "vandalism", and then went back on your campaign of expanding this article with things that don't have to do with anywhere named Chinatown, or which anybody considers a Chinatown (unless they subscribe to your view that you can reinvent words as you please - highly ironic given your habit of throwing dictionary definitions at me when you see words that make you uncomfortable and claim I'm not using them right). I use English just fine myself...."Someone in Canada" could deal with an article that's about the REAL historical Chinatowns in Southern California, and could tolerate Chinese commercial and residential areas in Southern California, by whatever terminology "concentrations", "districts", "enclaves" etc. But a bridal shop, that's not an enclave, whatever were you thinking? Monterey Park itself, LA County, and the State of California do not call Monterey Park a Chinatown, nor Temple City. Yet you insist that they are, because you've decided your new meaning for the word is how it is, and everybody else is holding you back etc etc. Have a good read also at WP:PSTS, which your friend Obfucious posted at the AfD on the now-deleted "Chinatown patterns in North America" article, which was exactly the kind of stuff you've been building here - only repeated...and you wanted to add it to the Chinatown, LA article.....but you just don't grasp WP:OR or WP:Synth or WP:Undue. Calling me names is no solution for your lack of comprehension of these.Skookum1 (talk) 04:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Let's get out of this slanging match and impugning motives; let's get to work on the article. I have just taken out a chunk of OR, and now would challenge the nom to analyse in detail, section by section, what of the remaining sourced information needs to go because it is synthesis or other OR. That should be an easy job, because much of it has sources apposed. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and Expand. Some of the reasons cited for deletion are that these areas and neighbourhoods are not really "Chinatowns". I'm not going to get into that discussion, but from what I see of the existing content, I don't see why the information cannot just be incorporated into Monterey Park, California or San Gabriel, California separately. However, I understand there may be a greater need to have an article on the Chinese American population in California. So I suggest that the article be renamed to expand its scope, something to the effect of Chinese Americans in California, or Chinese population in California, etc. It can include history as well as demographic content. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, Hong, for common sense; there were numerous REAL Chinatowns in several places in Southern California, but when I tried to introduce them into this article it was undone as "vandalism". As you can see by the other redlinks farther up I've suggested a name change would be sufficient, though the article would still need to be patrolled for ongoing original research and spam-like content about bridal shops and supermarkets. I wonder, though, are there articles on Hispanic Americans in California and African-American populations in California, or for that matter Canadians in Los Angeles (which is actually a notable and very citable topic....). how many articles are needed on Chinese history and settlement anyway? Will the same editors determined that this article should survive also build an article on Jewish settlement in California or Jews in California?? (surely a very notable topic, especially re Hollywood).Skookum1 (talk) 18:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is plenty of academic work done on those subject matters which you mentioned, but as with any topic here on Wikipedia, the more narrow the scope, the less editors there are who are willing to do the legwork to read the sources and write the article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/semi-warning The acrimony seems to be settling down here, but nevertheless I've gotten really bored with the endless shuttle-diplomacy involved in trying to get it that way. So yes, I am at the point of issuing blanket threats to all and sundry. For now, I'll ask that involved and uninvolved editors please try to complete this discussion by only addressing the content issues, not those of motivation, competence, understanding, you-are-a-total-jerk-iness or anything unrelated to what we all can agree (or disagree) that we wish to present to our readers. Can I ask that much? Franamax (talk) 02:29, 12 November 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Southern_California_Chinatowns&oldid=1170060664"