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. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 18:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chinese scientists[edit]

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

No content, unsourced. MaxPprem2 (talk) 02:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has valid content, you should've check the history. It was blanked by O1lI0 and I have restored it. And your claim it is unsourced is not correct, the entire list is linked to valid articles which have the sources. The list serve important function as an index to these articles much like category does. — Ammarpad (talk) 03:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Without stating any opinion on the list article, the definition of "unsourced" is that there are no sources in the article. Wikilinks are not sources, and in any case Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what it means. Unsourced means the list is unverifiable because it is not cited and in this case it is not A plain unlinked list or redlink can be called unsourced without citation but not linked one. I know Wikipedia is not RS but this is not circular referencing because the list is made just for its own sake (thus provide index like categories do). Not as article to provide claim on the people. All these people are notable (as is evidenced by the fact all are blue linked) and once notability exists the absence of citation cannot make it not notable — Ammarpad (talk) 12:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noteworthy: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Personally I don't think simple lists of names like this and List of German scientists are very useful, I prefer the more descriptive List of Russian scientists. However I see no reason to delete rather than improve.--Pontificalibus (talk) 09:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it meets WP:LISTN. Science and technology in China is an obviously notable topic, and this is a list that would otherwise be part of that article; as it is already rather long, it makes sense to have it as a standalone list. --bonadea contributions talk 11:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CLN. Whatever its flaws, it should not have been blanked by that "semi-retired" editor, who I see has garnered a healthy assortment of user talk page warnings. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pontificalibus and Bonadea. Name goes here (talk | contribs) 15:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep along with all the other lists in Category:Lists of scientists by nationality. It is standard in such lists that a reference is not needed when the article is linked since articles about scientists will have references saying that they are scientists. References may be needed for a person in a list of people who lived in X or went to school at Y since the article about them may not mention the fact. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It would be a more useful list if it were sorted by specialty and had biographical blurbs, like the List of Russian scientists mentioned above, but "X should be improved" is not an argument that "X should not exist". XOR'easter (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - And save us the trouble. GMG ^talk 18:05, 15 November 2017 (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.