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 as no one has suggested deletion by all means at all, after 2 weeks, so this can be kept and subsequently suggested if any other changes are needed, although I will note it is common for these subjects to stay (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hakka Americans

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Hakka Americans

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

This article was created by the same user who created the recent Hokkien and Hoklo Americans article. Searching on Google Books I found no results on "Hakka Americans". There are information about Chinese Americans who speaks Hakka, but on the concept of Hakka Americans itself, I can't find any English language sources to support this. Balthazarduju (talk) 19:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Google results: a Facebook page on an association on "Hakka Americans", a book on Hakka cuisine in North America describes the author as "Hakka-American", an article mentioning "Hakka americans", articles of Hakka Affairs Council, Taiwan, on "Hakka-American", "客裔美國人", "美國的客家人", "旅美客家人" and "美國客家", 美國客家人. There are also America Hakka Center, Hakka Association for Public Affairs in North America and various Hakka Associations in American cities.

WP:GNG: "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English". Lysimachi (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One line in a web page about this cookbook [2], a mention in a blog [3], Facebook page called "Hakka Association of Houston"?--Balthazarduju (talk) 23:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These links ("America Hakka Center, Hakka Association for Public Affairs in North America and various Hakka Associations in American cities") with information about "Taiwan Hakka" or "Taiwanese Hakka" that are in the United States, does not support creating an article called "Hakka Americans".--Balthazarduju (talk) 23:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns about the title are entirely valid, however that's not for AFD, it's a requested moves discussion. Thus I recommend this afd be speedily closed (please don't count this a separate vote)--Prisencolin (talk) 04:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. --Prisencolin (talk) 00:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Jamaica-related deletion discussions. --Prisencolin (talk) 00:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as with the Hoklo American page (I am the creator of both), there are sources just not anything titled as "Hakka Americans". There is also the history of Hakkas in Hawaii that should be noted.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Probably better to open up a WP:RM rather than deleting the article entirely. Meatsgains (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are there actually any scholarly works about "Hakka Americans"? Note that it is quite easy to create pages about the intersection of ethnicity and nationality but there needs to be some scholarly work about it. I am struggling to find it here. I personally think this should be merged into a suitable page, but which one, we need to decide. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the comment by MSJapan (diff) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hokkien and Hoklo Americans is relevant here as well. I see a lot of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. For example if we consider this During the 1960s and 1970s, substantial migration of Jamaican Hakkas to the USA and Canada occurred.^[1] Most Chinese Jamaicans are Hakka; they have a long history in Jamaica. Between 1845 and 1884, nearly 5000 Hakkas arrived in Jamaica in three major voyages. The Hakkas seized the opportunity to venture into a new land, embracing the language, customs, and culture. The reference says Chinese Jamaicans migrated to Canada. It also says that many Chinese Jamaicans were of Hakka descent. However, it doesn't say substantial migration of Jamaican Hakkas to the USA and Canada occurred. This is WP:SYNTH. I am leaning towards a delete now as I couldn't find scholarly works on "Hakka Americans". If there are no such works, this is almost entirely original research. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ [1] Archived March 16, 2014, at the Wayback Machine

@Lemongirl942: I found one - it is used in [4]. Given the discussion of Hakka speakers in the US in Him Mark Lai (4 June 2004). Becoming Chinese American: A History of Communities and Institutions. Rowman Altamira. pp. 245–. ISBN 978-0-7591-1554-5., I think there are more sources that touch on that. It seems to be a notable ethnic group, a subdivision of Chinese Americans. Therefore I'll vote weak keep. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that juxtaposition is WP:NOTSYNTHESIS. Also, there don't need to any scholarly works specifically about this subject if there are many abou Asian Americans and Hakka diaspora, both of which mention this subject.--Prisencolin (talk) 06:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On the comments of Lemongirl942: 1. If you think some texts are questionable, you could add a citation needed tag. That some parts of an article seems to be OR doesn't mean the topic itself is OR. 2. I checked the reasons for deletion at WP:DP and couldn't find one that requires scholarly works. 3. There are works on this topic, such as this one, even conferences on Hakka diaspora with talks focusing on America. 4. This is not WP:SYNTH. The concept of Hakka Americans can be found in the sources listed in the above discussion. Lysimachi (talk) 09:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm precisely saying that the concept of "Hakka Americans" doesn't exist. Or show me some reliable sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chinese American For the following reasons

Per WP:NOTNEO No scholarly work even uses the term "Hakka American". When we have intersections such as these, we need reliable sources to back it up - and we need reliable sources to address the exact topic directly and in detail.
Nobody seems to have actually defined the term "Hakka American". There needs to be at least one definition in a reliable source. I cannot find any. Without such a definition, this would be WP:OR and a shaky foundation for the article.
I also see this as a "kind of" POV Fork (and that too a WP:FRINGE one) from Chinese Americans (although to clarify, the content is not NPOV). Chinese Americans refers to Americans of Chinese ancestry (regardless of the nation of origin - this includes Chinese from Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore etc). Hakka Americans are part of it. I see no reason why this shouldn't be covered in that article.
I do not see sources specifically distinguishing between Chinese Americans and Hakka Americans. Hakka Americans are also ethnically Chinese Americans. I have yet to see someone who claims to be Hakka and yet they claim to be not ethnic Chinese.
Whether an ethnic identity of "Hakka Americans" exists is questionable. I do not see any scholarly works showing evidence of a sense of distinct identity among "Hakka Americans" - to be honest, I have never heard of Americans self identifying as Hakka Americans. (You can contrast this with Singapore, where Hokkien and Teochew people often identify with their dialect. They are still classified as Chinese Singaporeans).
I am also concerned with the factual accuracy of the article. Anya Ayoung-Chee is part of the list, although no reliable source says she is Hakka American. This is essentially original research.
There is a lot of WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK in the article. For example, "During the 1960s and 1970s, substantial migration of Jamaican Hakkas to the USA and Canada occurred." is not supported by the source. The rest is plain coatrack.
Overall, the sources do not address the topic at all and this is not encyclopaedic. Redirect or delete, either is fine with me. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is definitely a distinct Hakka identity in Mainland China and Taiwan, although in some parts of the world they become assimilated into the general Chinese community. Global Hakka: Hakka Identity in the Remaking is apparently a whole book about the Hakka diaspora. I don't have access to the whole book but there is a listing from United States in the Index.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've temporarily renamed the page in recognition of WP:NEOLOGISM concerns.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to [[Chinese ethnic groups in the United States]].--Pharos (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese ethnic groups: "The major minority ethnic groups in China are Zhuang (16.9 million), Uyghur (11.5 million), Hui (10.5 million), Manchu (10.3 million), Miao (9.4 million), Yi (8.7 million), Tujia (8.3 million), Tibetan (6.2 million), Mongol (5.9 million), Dong (2.8 million), Buyei (2.8 million), Yao (2.7 million), Bai (1.9 million), Korean (1.8 million), Hani (1.6 million), Li (1.4 million), Kazakh (1.4 million), and Dai (1.2 million)." So Tibetan Americans, Manchu Americans, Kazakh Americans, Korean Americans... should all be merged to [[Chinese ethnic groups in the United States]]?? Lysimachi (talk) 16:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would cover the ethnic diversity of Chinese Americans, as defined in that article.--Pharos (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Taiwanese Americans. FYI I posted the same rationale to the current AFD for Hokkien_and_Hoklo_Americans. The few academic sources I found that specifically mention Hoklo and Hakka immigrants in the U.S. all said that in Taiwan and in the US, the Hoklo and the Hakka self-identify as "native Taiwanese". For example, this 2006 journal article by Christine Avenarius, who seems to be an authority on the topic, was the most in-depth coverage I found on Taiwanese subethnic groups in the US, and according to Avenarius (with my emphasis):
"Immigrants interviewed for this research were...able to identify who was Hoklo, Hakka or a Mainlander among the members of their social networks. However, in their comments on social life in Taiwan and California in general, all informants grouped Hoklo and Hakka people together, referring to them as native Taiwanese (bendiren)...Given the small number of Hakka informants in the sample and the common practice of all immigrants from Taiwan to group both Hoklo and Hakka together under the label 'native Taiwanese' (bendiren) as introduced above, I aggregated Hoklo and Hakka informants in the analysis."

Relevant quotes from other academic sources
Lien, Pei-te (November 2008), "Homeland origins and political identities among Chinese in Southern California", Ethnic and Racial Studies, 31 (8): 13811403, doi:10.1080/01419870701682253 That the nature of ethnic identity is fluid and multi-layered is observed by anthropologist Franklin Ng (1998, p. 118) who comments that, like Chinese from elsewhere, migrants and their descents from Taiwan can consider themselves as Taiwanese American, Chinese American, Asian American or American, and the identity choices depend on the situation, the community and the individuals involved. Despite the improvement over previous means, this categorization scheme is not able to capture the full spectrum of the nuanced effect of homeland socialization context because of the lack of a measure of parental lineage and their time of entry to Taiwan. In contemporary Taiwan, those who were born in Taiwan but with parents born in China were considered ‘mainlanders’ and they tend to identify themselves ethnically as Chinese rather than Taiwanese, an orientation that has been observed to be different from that of other Taiwan natives whose parents were born in Taiwan. However, research on public opinion in Taiwan shows that it would be a mistake to treat the two groups of Taiwan natives [Hoklo and Hakka] as completely distinct in their orientation on the independence issue and their socialization experiences. Ma, Laurence J. C.; Cartier, Carolyn L. (2003), The Chinese Diaspora: Space, Place, Mobility, and Identity, Rowman & Littlefield, ISBN 9780742517561 The Hoklo speak Min-nan hua, or Southern Min, the same dialect still found in Fujian, but typically referred to in Taiwan today as (imprecisely) the 'Taiwanese' dialect or language...For the sake of simplicity, and for political differentiation, the Hakka and Hoklo have been lumped together in post-1945 Taiwan as the collective 'Taiwanese.' to distinguish them as the 'native' Chinese of Taiwan as opposed to the more recent Han Chinese immigrants (the 'mainlanders') of the postwar era. This classification of the 'Taiwanese,' which has both ethnic and political overtones, was a creation o the mainlander-run ROC government, but was accepted and even embraced by most Hakka/Hoklo Taiwanese in the harsh political climate of post-1945 Taiwan. (p.165-166)

Relevant quotes from other academic sources

Lien, Pei-te (November 2008), "Homeland origins and political identities among Chinese in Southern California", Ethnic and Racial Studies, 31 (8): 13811403, doi:10.1080/01419870701682253
- That the nature of ethnic identity is fluid and multi-layered is observed by anthropologist Franklin Ng (1998, p. 118) who comments that, like Chinese from elsewhere, migrants and their descents from Taiwan can consider themselves as Taiwanese American, Chinese American, Asian American or American, and the identity choices depend on the situation, the community and the individuals involved.
- Despite the improvement over previous means, this categorization scheme is not able to capture the full spectrum of the nuanced effect of homeland socialization context because of the lack of a measure of parental lineage and their time of entry to Taiwan. In contemporary Taiwan, those who were born in Taiwan but with parents born in China were considered ‘mainlanders’ and they tend to identify themselves ethnically as Chinese rather than Taiwanese, an orientation that has been observed to be different from that of other Taiwan natives whose parents were born in Taiwan. However, research on public opinion in Taiwan shows that it would be a mistake to treat the two groups of Taiwan natives [Hoklo and Hakka] as completely distinct in their orientation on the independence issue and their socialization experiences.
Ma, Laurence J. C.; Cartier, Carolyn L. (2003), The Chinese Diaspora: Space, Place, Mobility, and Identity, Rowman & Littlefield, ISBN 9780742517561
- The Hoklo speak Min-nan hua, or Southern Min, the same dialect still found in Fujian, but typically referred to in Taiwan today as (imprecisely) the 'Taiwanese' dialect or language...For the sake of simplicity, and for political differentiation, the Hakka and Hoklo have been lumped together in post-1945 Taiwan as the collective 'Taiwanese.' to distinguish them as the 'native' Chinese of Taiwan as opposed to the more recent Han Chinese immigrants (the 'mainlanders') of the postwar era. This classification of the 'Taiwanese,' which has both ethnic and political overtones, was a creation o the mainlander-run ROC government, but was accepted and even embraced by most Hakka/Hoklo Taiwanese in the harsh political climate of post-1945 Taiwan. (p.165-166)

I can't find enough coverage that's actually on this topic to be able to write an article without original research/synthesis. Reliable sources don't use the term Hakka to describe Taiwanese immigrants in the US and members of that ethnic group don't use it about themselves, so doesn't make sense to use that article title. The article that already exists, "Taiwanese Americans", seems to be the common name. —PermStrump(talk) 09:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaica is also a major source of Hakka immigration to the US. Finding Samuel Lowe is a book about a Jamaican Hakka immigrant, written by his descendant, Paula Madison.--Prisencolin (talk) 16:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Permstrump: There are Taiwanese Hakka Americans and Chinese Hakka Americans. How can Hakka Americans simply be merged into Taiwanese Americans? Lysimachi (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lysimachi: Gotcha. All of the academic sources I found were talking about Taiwanese Americans that mentioned Hakka/Hoklo, but what Lemongirl942 said below helped me see the big picture. —PermStrump(talk) 00:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Original Research: We need reliable independent sources. The source from the Hakka Affairs Council cannot be considered independent. This is the reason why scholarly sources are preferred: they have undergone peer review. Another important thing is WP:ENN. We don't have article simply because some people may identity as a Hakka culture. The reason why this article is OR is because it is trying to classify distinct groups of people - "Chinese Jamaicans who emigrated to US". "Taiwanese who emigrated to US", "PRC Chinese who emigrated to US" all under the umbrella of "Hakka Americans". This is something which we are not supposed to do unless an existing work has done it and this has found reasonable acceptance. For example, existing sources talk separately about Chinese Jamaicans (and talk about Hakka ancestry within this context), Taiwanese Americans (and talk about Hakka ancestry within this context), Americans from PR China (and talk about people with Hakka culture). But they do not string them together and there is no talk about a unified Hakka American identity. Until such a time arrives, Chinese Jamaicans of Hakka descent are to be covered within Chinese Jamaicans (and so on for the other articles). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion:"AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies." Which policies require "independent" sources, "scholarly" works and a "unified" identity for this article? WP:ENN: "This page is an essay . . . Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines." Lysimachi (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources don't have to be scholarly, but to meet general notability guidelines, the topic has to have received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (emphasis and links from the source). There needs to be enough independent coverage in reliable secondary sources that we can write a neutral article on the topic. This article is original research in that it synthesizes material from multiple sources to imply a conclusion that isn't made in any of the sources. —PermStrump(talk) 00:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is that synthesized conclusion? Lysimachi (talk) 08:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The index of Global Hakka: Hakka Identity in the Remaking lists all of the major nationalities of Hakka overseas, including the United States. I don't think there should be any question anymore that the premise of the article itself is purely original research.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chinese American per Lemongirl942. I see no use of this term in the WP notable sense. Any info worth mentioning could be moved into a section within Chinese American. MB 22:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note there are Taiwanese Hakka Americans. Lysimachi (talk) 09:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- And Jamaican Hakka Americans with not direct political connection to China--Prisencolin (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Chinese Americans are "Americans who have full or partial Chinese ancestry" (from the article lead). Intervening political labels do not change ancestry. The lead goes on to state their ancestors may be from Taiwan and other places. The article is very inclusive. MB 01:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. WP:WINARS: "Wikipedia is not a reliable source." You can't cite Wikipedia article as sources. 2. Does the article Chinese Americans define "Chinese ancestry"? Does it say all Taiwanese Americans are Chinese Americans? 3. As long as Chinese is used as a political label, you can't disregard the political boundaries. 4. To use Chinese Americans in a "very inclusive" way is your POV. Putting all Hakka Americans under Chinese Americans is contentious and violates WP:NPOV: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV)." Lysimachi (talk) 08:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. I was not citing WP as a source, I was stating what the article is about/why it is an appropriate redirect. 2. Yes it does; why don't you read the article before commenting. 3. You can disregard political boundaries if you are just talking about ethnicity. 4. I didn't use Chinese Americans in a "very inclusive" way, I said that the article Chinese Americans was inclusive - it is about about all Americans with Chinese ancestry. It is neutral to look at ancestry without regard to politics. If you think that Taiwanese people do not have Chinese ancestry (except for the indigenous islanders), then you don't have a NPOV. MB 13:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2. So please tell us what is the definition of "Chinese ancestry"? 3. You can't disregard it, because "Chinese" refers to China. Lysimachi (talk) 12:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, there is enough information here, as well as more that will be added later, that would justify a standalone article. A merger into the Chinese Americans would create undue weight on the latter. There's this impression that there is a single Chinese culture that is uniform across all of its people, but this is simply not true. There is an acknowledged distinction between northern and southern cultures, but it is often downplayed for various reasons. Technically yes, all Taiwanese Han people have ancestors that originated from areas currently in the PRC, even the aborigines are thought to have come from the Chinese Mainland, you are conflating "Han" for "Chinese" which leads to some problems. However, the differences are numerous, and that's why we should have separate pages for these two. Also note that many more sources are likely located WP:OFFLINE and are WP:FOREIGNSOURCES--Prisencolin (talk) 16:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the synth. The Chinese Jamaicans who emigrated to US later as considered as "Chinese Jamaicans" - they are not considered as "Hakka Americans". Unless an external source talks about "Hakka Americans" and then says "Chinese Jamaicans" are also included in it, we should not include it here. This is the problem. When you create an article called "Hakka American" it becomes an identity - and for this we need multiple reliable sources to actually show it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"When you create an article called "Hakka American" it becomes an identity" Is it stated in any WP policy? Lysimachi (talk) 12:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Did you even comprehend what I said? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any WP policy that supports "When you create an article called "Hakka American" it becomes an identity"? Lysimachi (talk) 16:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that Hakka American is not an identity? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am asking if there is any WP policy that supports your statement. Lysimachi (talk) 23:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My statement was a pretty basic one and it isn't a policy. I'm not convinced that you actually understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines as you were recently blocked for edit warring despite multiple warnings to make you understand. I suggest you take some time to actually understand how Wikipedia works. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So it's not supported by any policy or guideline? Great, thanks for answering. Lysimachi (talk) 08:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lysimachi, would you support me moving the article back to "Hakka people in the United States". It really doesn't seem like the phrase "Hakka Americans" is in widespread usage.--Prisencolin (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, Prisencolin, because "Hakka American" is in use while there are only four Google search results for "Hakka people in the United States", all from WP, and because the former is the way different groups of people in the USA are named on WP. Lysimachi (talk) 23:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to say this but this is a WP:CIR case. You arguments don't make sense at all. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chinese Americans. After following the discussion above I'm of the opinion that without impermissible synthesis there is nothing on this subject to use for an article that reliable sources would support. Certainly there are Americans of Hakka descent, but an article at this point would be at the vanguard of recognizing this group. That is not our role. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry to be blunt, but that's just not true at all. Basically all the sources the sources do explicitly acknowledge the existence of Hakka people in the US. There's even a reliable source estimating that there are over 20,000 Hakka in America. Let's not get this confused the the Hoklo and Hokkien people debate, which I'll admit pushes WP:SYNTH a bit to make some of its points. This article, however, does not.--Prisencolin (talk) 05:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There are Hakka Americans of Taiwanese origin. Redirect to Chinese Americans violates WP:NPOV. Also, there's nothing that needs to be "recognized" by this article, which is not even a function of WP, the concept exists and there are people who identify with it. Lysimachi (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Americans refers to people of Chinese ethnicity and not solely Chinese nationality. That's the scope of the article. None of that violates NPOV.--Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Chinese ethnicity" is a very broad construct that does have many common features but the various sub-ethnicities, especially Hakka, are distinct enough to warrant a separate article in this case.--Prisencolin (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They seem separate concepts, and there should be separate articles. The argument about lack of English sources is irrelevant if there are Chinese sources. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]