Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ningbonese people

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 10:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ningbonese people

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

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

Undersourced article. This is neither a notable ethnicity nor a nationality. Prisencolin (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless it can be shown that this is not a WP:CFORK. Geschichte (talk) 07:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move. It is really a list not a regular article. If you look at the article history, you will see that the page was formerly named "List of people from Ningbo", and that's what the page really is. It is linked from Ningbo to serve that function. Note that "List of people from <place>" pages are quite commonplace (Category:Lists of people by location) and there's no reason to single out this one for deletion. I agree that there's no evidence showing that Ningbonese people are a meaningful ethnic group; to the extent that the lead section or info box give a misleading impression in that regard, they can be edited. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There's not a much prose on this article as I had remembered in the past... I suppose a simple rename could be in order.-- Prisencolin (talk) 09:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a term that the article does not have enough sources to demonstrate that it is actually a notable term worth having an article on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2021 (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.