Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birth tourism


 * 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, with no prejudice to a merge being agreed to. There is little support for deletion here, with some supporting a merge (with a couple of different targets) but there is also strong support for the idea that a seperate article is fine. Davewild (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Birth tourism

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable neologism; derogatory ethnically divisive term; lack of reliable sourcing; little or no encyclopedic value


 * Delete as nominator. This is clearly a WP:neologism, apparently coined or adopted by a few ambitious journalists to make their story sound more juicy.  Although it is clear from the sources that a small but unknown number of people indeed travel to the United States on a temporary basis in order to obtain natal care, and that the baby becomes a US citizen as a (sometimes intended) result, there is not enough sourcing to establish that the phenomenon is notable, much less the neologism.  The term is often used condescendingly or in a bigoted way, much as anchor baby (which is how I found this article) or welfare queen.  The differences between this article and those are that: (1) those terms are in widespread if not universal circulation, with major mentions in reliable sources to describe their use and/or use the term ("welfare queen" has 1350 google news hits and "anchor baby" has 282 to 7 for "birth tourism"), and (2) those articles are encyclopedic in that they describe the use, application, origin, etc., of the neologism, rather than endorsing the accuracy of the neologism as an apt description of a real phenomenon.  Turning to the seven sources I see no significant reliable mentions.  I found a couple reliable sources among the total 1,670 google hits - - a Los Angeles local TV report, where the introduction (but not the body of the report) describes it as a new thing they've uncovered in an "investigation" and a single 2002 L.A. Times feature from their South Korea desk.  Although the LA times is a reliable source, a single news source isn't enough to describe that there is a generally accepted term describing an actual class of immigrants.  There are only 25-30 different kinds of visas and immigration methods in the US.  If there were a legitimate term for one of them, it would appear in more legitimate sources than a single newspaper article and a single TV news segment.  Again, it's just journalists trying to coin a term, and the term got a little play but did not catch on.  - Wikidemo (talk) 07:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The LA Times reference does indicate that this practise is widespread among some women in Asia. Virtually everyone who isn't American knows that if their child is born in America, their offspring automatically receives US citizenship. This is not a minor neologism and it is not racist to acknowledge the truth. However, the title of the article ought to be changed to something less provocative and more neutral if possible. Artene50 (talk) 07:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's the kind of stuff I was referring to: Worried about flood of "black market" "Jamerican" babies. And here they say it's part of "droves of illegal aliens invading the US."  Here:[ http://www.amren.com/news/news04/02/18/birthright.html ] "the spectacle of women in labor dragging themselves through the Arizona desert in order to give birth to their very own tickets into the American social services network."  Most of the (very few) uses of this term I can find are from low reliability right wing groups banging the drum for immigration reform.   Not a real phenomenon as described.  The practice is actually legal.  Even if we can describe the phenomenon neutrally the phrase is generally a pejorative anti-foreigner term, not a real word - a racially tinged invective.  And before you think that the Jamaica Observer or the American Renaissance are reliable sources, the first basically quotes the entire Wikipedia article, and the second is a radical white separatist magazine. - So far I've found only the two sources I mentioned, and a single LA Times article + a news clip introduction from the same city doesn't make an immigration phenomenon.  Wikidemo (talk) 08:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't find the phrase particularly offensive. "Anchor baby" carries the connotation (and a rather spurious and farfetched one at that) that the child is being used as a means to an end -- that is to say, immigration status for the parents. That imputes mercenary motives to the parents which may not exist. "Birth tourism" seems a far more neutral description of a phenomenon which, to be honest, is rather well underrstood to exist in certain immigrant communities. It would be pejorative to impute it to all women who give birth while being tourists, but it would be to deny reality to assert that there aren't women who travel in order to give birth. In that sense, it's a phrase much like medical tourism -- which may provide implicit commentary on the quality of the medical system in destination and source countries, but does not carry any strong negative connotation. RayAYang (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The term isn't semantically offensive - not all epithets are. However, if you look at the very scant amount of usage the term gets, the majority of times it appears it's being used to demonize foreigners, so there is a negative connotation being attached to it.  Someone who comes to America for purposes of giving birth is not a "tourist" in any normal sense.  That designation is somewhat mocking, casting the act as frivolous or greedy.Wikidemo (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a relatively neutral (at least in title, haven't looked at text in depth) article that already exists which is just a description (Birthright citizenship in the United States of America). Both of the neologisms have NPOV issues.  I'd actually prefer to redirect this exact phrase to Jus soli, which is the legal term for the idea of birthright citizenship, but most of this content is specific to the US and should be in the specific article.  SDY (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There was a recent RFC on the use of "anchor baby" at that precise article. Part of the emerging consensus includes a short description and an internal link to the "anchor baby" article. Pejorative as it is, it is far more inappropriate to discuss it at length inside an article on US citizenship, rather than to describe it on its own in a neutral manner, as the current article does. RayAYang (talk) 13:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Your article here perfectly illustrates why 'birth tourism' is a notable neologism. Why do you think some US right wing groups want to repeal/amend the 14th amendment? They fear America would be swamped by these dubious new immigrants who give a bad name to this law. Everyone in the rest of the world--Asia, Africa, South America and the Caribbean--knows about birth tourism and America's famously liberal citizenship laws. What can I say...its the truth. Enough said. Artene50 (talk) 08:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Could stand to be better sourced, maybe even slimmed down a bit but the references are legit. - Schrandit (talk) 12:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Sourcing seems more than fine. Could be improved, but that's not a reason to delete. Hobit (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Anchor baby, a far more notable term describing the same phenomenon.  Jim Miller  See me 16:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I emphatically oppose the merger into anchor baby -- the latter term carries a related but different set of baggage. Anchor babies are involved in efforts for chain migration -- that is, bringing the entire family to a particular country. Birth tourism need have no other motive than to give the child being born a better future. RayAYang (talk) 21:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Merge Important and very real concept, even if one particular term for it is perforce a neologism. I'd be wary of merging it to an article whose first reference admits that it's a deliberately pejorative term. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Better place to merge it, I'm happy to. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as per the eloquence of Artene50.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 16:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge specific contents, with anchor baby, into Birthright citizenship in the United States of America. Redirect the title and the general description into Jus soli. SDY (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think these provide ample evidence that this phrase, whatever its parentage, is now in global and common use, in several cases without even the benefit of scare quotes. RayAYang (talk) 04:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a neologism that has entered into global usage, and is notable in its own right. Nor is it clear to me that the terminology is necessarily derogatory. It seems a straightforward explanation of the purposes of certain travels, which are legitimate exploitations of current citizenship law in many countries. RayAYang (talk) 21:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * delete. These seems to be very little reliable secondary sources on the phrase and its usage. I would note that, unlike Anchor baby, the phrase Birth tourism does not appear in American lexicographer Grant Barrett's award-winning web site Double-Tongued Dictionary. I would also note that some of the scant few newspaper references use the term with only the wikipedia article as a source, and so should not be used to bolster the case for inclusion of this term in a circular fashion. When and if the Double-Tongued Dictionary, or other reliable secondary source reporting on the phrase's usage and meaning, then it can always be re-added.--Ramsey2006 (talk) 00:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment As I've already voted, I thought it might be helpful to supply further readers with a (short) selection of articles that use this phrase, although they do not examine it in the sort of depth to merit mentioning in the article itself as sources.
 * 1) Who Are the Citizens of Europe? by Rainer Baubock, first published in Vanguardia Dossier 22, January-March 2007.
 * 2) Hong Kong's Baby Boom Opportunity, from Britain's Daily Telegraph.
 * 3) Just what the doctor ordered: medical tourism in Monash Business Review, from Australia (behind a paywall).
 * 4) One Korean-American's Quest in the Korea Times of Seoul (clearly, an English version).
 * I think it proves exactly the opposite. The Vanguardia Dossier is an article in translation puts the term in quotes, making clear it's an unfamiliar word that needs definition in English.  The Daily Telegraph piece is the closest to a reliable source but it's a bit of an essay, it's not a news story (which means it's the reporter's informal usage).  The Monash University e-press piece is behind a login but doesn't seem to be a major publication (meaning if they use it, it doesn't establish that it's an accepted term).  Finally, the Korea Times piece is an essay in an English-language Korean paper (meaning minor publication of specialized interest).  I looked at all those and didn't think they are worth mentioning.  The phrase only has 1,800 google hits for goodness sake!  The only two significant sources/mentions I could find out of those were the LA Times and the local news story, also from LA.  And that's it.  A few mentions scattered here and there might be enough to marginally pass notability for a subject matter, but if the subject matter is supposedly a global phenomenon it does not establish that a word is a real term.  If it were a real term it would appear in more than two reliable sources, and we generally avoid neologisms to begin with.  If there is a phenomenon of women traveling legally to the US to have babies, and not just the happenstance of where people happen to be or where they get the best medical care, the term "tourism" doesn't describe it very well.  Wikidemo (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A non-notable just-invented neologism that happens to be used by unrelated people on 4 continents, found after 15 minutes of Google searching on the subject? I think that's stretching the idea of non-notability. RayAYang (talk) 06:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, six times in six years among one billion speakers of English on eight billion web pages - grand total - does not establish a neologism as notable. In 30 seconds I find wider adoption on google for such phrases as "cat rage", "mouse mania" and "dog stop."  It may or may not make the concept notable as a concept, but definitely not the derogatory neologism.Wikidemo (talk) 18:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep Concept is referenced with WP:RS. Though name may be neologism, concept is valid, and at most, article should be renamed. Creator did a good job of contrasting views in a few countries to provide a more global point-of-view. Sebwite (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Jus soli. Neutralitytalk 03:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Article should be kept as is since it is sourced by reliable sources. This is a legitimate term. Artene50 (talk) 07:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.