Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bolivian Brazilian


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Bolivian Brazilian

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

100,000 of 190,000,000 people in Brazil - not significant. Punkmorten (talk) 13:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Deletion-Brazilian Since Jmundo is working on improvements, I'd prefer to wait to see what comes of it.  The article is premised on nothing more than a sentence from this source .  Apparently, this is going to be one of lots of articles entitled __________ian Brazilian with no content.  Mandsford (talk) 14:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yet another Fooian Barian ethnicity article with no real content. At least there is a source this time, although just a single sentence does not seem to warrant an article. I note that the number of Bolivian Brazilians is not the basis for me to support deletion; rather, it's the lack of sources to establish the notability of this ethnic group. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm changing my recommendation to neutral in recognition of the effort that is now being put into the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep-- Bolivian legal and illegal immigration to Brazil is a notable subject in South America. An newspaper article describe the situation: "in Argentina and Brazil those who oppose the legalization argue that most Bolivians will leave their country and grow the operation." Another  article deals with the subject,  "the governments of Bolivia and Brazil have begun to develop an agreement to regularize the situation of several thousand undocumented Bolivian immigrants in Brazil, informed diplomatic sources". Yes, the sources are "foreign", but WP:bias says that "that "availability of sources is not uniform". You always can use translate.google.com. --Jmundo (talk) 15:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep based on Jmundo's identification of sources. One of them has the headline "Like the United States, Argentina and Brazil Deal With Immigrants" (EEUU is the abbreviation for "Estados Unidos"), and notes the influx of thousands illegal workers; the other one is more specific to Brazil, concerning meetings between the Governor of Mato Grosso and the President of Bolivia.  Definitely on the right track.  Mandsford (talk) 19:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions.   cab (talk) 05:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions.   cab (talk) 05:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions.   cab (talk) 05:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep 100,000 is actually a fairly large size as far as migrant groups go, and I'd be surprised if a group of that size hadn't been written about at all by journalists, scholars, government reports, etc. --- and User:Jmundo has actually found some such sources. Foreign language sources are perfectly fine --- the general notability guideline cares about the amount of information which has been written about a topic, not the language that information is written in. Also, not a deletion issue, but I don't see evidence that this group are actually called "Bolivian Brazilians" --- the article should probably be moved ("Bolivians in Brazil", "Bolivian migrants in Brazil", or some similar title). cab (talk) 05:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep from me too as it looks like some sources have been found that could establish notability. I suggest moving the page to Bolivians in Brazil though, to avoid using a neologism. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment--I moved the page content to Bolivians in Brazil. "Bolivian Brazilian" is a neologism not found in the Spanish or Portuguese language. --Jmundo (talk) 21:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You copy-pasted the content rather than moving it in the normal fashion. Can the closing admin please perform a history merge between Bolivian Brazilian and Bolivians in Brazil (the newly created article by JMundo)? Thanks, cab (talk) 07:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete "Bolivian-brasileiro" is not portuguese (neither Brazilian nor European). Is Bolivian an ethnic group or a nationality? I mean IMHO there are several different indigenous groups which originated several nations in South America (and most are mixed of European people too). It is impossible to say that Argentinean, Peruvian, Colombian, etc are ethnic groups when they are in fact nationalities. Descíclope (talk) 00:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And so what, exactly? The article discusses the migration of Bolivian nationals to Brazil. Bolivian nationals are quite a well-defined group (anyone with a Bolivian passport), and Brazil is quite a well-defined unit of territory. This is either a notable topic or a non-notable one, depending on your assessment of the available sources. Whether the migrants are one ethnic group, or two, or a mish-mash, has nothing to do with this deletion debate. cab (talk) 07:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete does not seem to be a term that is in widespread use to describe a group of people (per Google web/Books/Scholar). JJL (talk) 01:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Per the discussion above, the article content has been moved to Bolivians in Brazil, and we're waiting for a history merge. WP:NEO alone is generally not considered a reason to delete an article. cab (talk) 03:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment what makes Bolivians in Brazil notable? JJL (talk) 03:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The references. cab (talk) 04:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The more than 200,000 Bolivians working illegally in the country.--Jmundo (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Bolivians in Brazil. This one is pretty obvious: They both have almost identical information. Tavix (talk) 04:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That was a bogus copy-and-paste "move" by Jmundo, which I've now fixed (by doing a real move). Please re-address the article under discussion.  That it duplicated a copy of itself that was made during this AFD discussion isn't really a rationale for doing anything (except for fixing the situation so that GFDL compliance is once more restored &#9786;). Uncle G (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing it. I'm learning here, my intentions were in good faith. --Jmundo (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2009 (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.