Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Children's immigration crisis


 * 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. There is a consensus here that this is a notable event, which should have a wikipedia article and that concerns about the article should be solved by editing. The discussion about what the article title should be needs to be discussed on the article talk page not here. Davewild (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Children's immigration crisis

 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 10:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 10:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 10:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This doesn't look like an encylopedia article to me, merely some minor news coverage of a story (WP:NOTNEWS). More problematically, it looks a little like a slanted political piece (even if that was not the intention) to make a point about Obama's immigration policy. Black Kite kite (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - per WP:NOTNEWS (some of the text may be a candidate for Wikinews). ukexpat (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Neutral, leaning delete - Immigration into the US has been in the news a lot recently, both due to its scale and to related law reform. However, the article here does not delineate its subject matter clearly enough; a reliable source would need to be produced, and preferably two, showing that the specific circumstance the article intends to cover both (a) exists and (b) is being treated as a discrete event in its own right by sources that may be regarded as reliable on such matters. (So no partisan blogs, for example.) And of course the entire thing needs to be rewritten in an encyclopedic style, and without the obvious bias towards a US-resident readership. (I make no comment as to any political bias of the current text; it's the cultural bias that struck me.) AlexTiefling (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete The article reads as a thinly veiled attack against persons migrating from Mexico to the United States and policies of the current United States administration. I got over-ruled on my nomination for a speedy and I'll wear that. However this article has no encyclopedic value at all. It's merely one persons political rant. Thanks for nominating here. Saved me the trouble. AlanS (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve The article's title is vague? OK, so change it.  The article's WP:POV is showing?  OK, then neutralize it. The article is an attack against Mexican immigrants? Not at all. Calling the immigration of these children illegal is not an attack against them, but merely a statement of fact. They are attempting to enter the country by means other than the normal legal immigration route, and thus their entry violates US laws and is de facto illegal. (By the way, the present crisis involves children mostly from Honduras, Nicaragua and Guatemala, not Mexico.)  Surely this is an ongoing issue that is generating a lot of press, and there should surely be sufficient coverage in reliable sources to build an article that covers all sides of the issue.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll refrain from !voting for the moment. Can someone explain to me exactly how this is excessively slanted or an attack? It seems like a fairly neutral description of how a law that was intended to deal with trafficking has had an unintended side effect and how the current administration is dealing with that side effect. I don't see any slurs, statements to the effect that the original administration that passed the law was incompetent, or statements to the effect that the current administration is incompetent.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikidan sums it up nicely and I found nothing there I disagreed with. This is more than a news story, this is an event.  There are lots of political hacks trying to use it as a wedge issue on both sides of the isle, there is a real humanitarian issue at stake, but more importantly, this is getting lots of press.  Headlines.  It needs fixing, but then again, it was just started, but there is absolutely no question it is a notable topic that can be written in a neutral fashion, as demonstrated by the amount of air time and column inches the event is getting.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  14:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Needs a lot of work, possibly even a rename, but this is definitely a notable event that should be the topic of an article, and Fred's work makes a decent first draft. Keep. DS (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - WP:NOTNEWS does apply here, but this is still - even according to U.S. Homeland Security - an unprecedented event in immigration, one that would warrant a separate article. I do not see how the article's content constitutes an attack against immigrants. In addition, deleting the article because it makes the U.S. President look bad is a misinterpretation of WP:NPOV. I will submit that the article very badly needs further development to bring it up to encyclopedic par. --WaltCip (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Either re-write significantly or, if that can't/won't be done, delete until someone else wants to try (also, rename to something U.S. specific). I suspect there's nothing unencyclopedic or non-notable about the topic here (I, too, have been reading the media reports focusing on children's immigration issues that have been flooding in recently), the problem is just in the execution, so I'd be fine with either a re-write or a without-prejudice deletion. The trouble with this particular version of an article on this topic is that rather than being an encyclopedia article, this seems to be the first few paragraphs of a persuasive news piece, complete with a "hook"y intro ("Coming up later, on CBS...tens of thousands of children crossing into the US without their parents!") rather than a lede, and a sort of timeline of primary events related to the topic rather than a discussion of the actual article topic. This could all be incorporated into an article, but as it stands it's not an article, and the manner in which it's failing to be an article is actively problematic for readers who expect to see an encyclopedic discussion. For what it's worth, I don't agree with the calls that the article is biased toward or against immigration or that it's an attack page; I think it's so lacking in organization/a point that people are actually reacting to whichever "pro" or "anti" sentence (and there are both, because again, it's simply listing source claims rather than discussing their relevance) in it catches their attention. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Switching to Keep. Though the article still has some tone and organization issues, it's now a quite serviceable first pass at the topic. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I created the article. I'm not wedded to the title but suggest that 2014 not be included in any new title as this seems likely to extend beyond 2014 and has roots in prior years, and in at least one film made in prior years. The most significant information is the interaction of the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 with the current wave of immigration producing unintended consequences. Remarks about my motives and possible bias are totally out of bounds. I have opinions, on both sides of the issues, but tried to write a neutral article. As to news, this is not some fool riding around in a Bronco. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * How about proposing a title that doesn't treat the USA as the whole world, then? AlexTiefling (talk) 14:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "Children's immigration crisis in the United States"? --WaltCip (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Plausible. How are reliable sources referring to the situation? AlexTiefling (talk) 14:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * By there way there is Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in the United Kingdom User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

New title Immigration of Central American children to the United States User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * delete This is plainly a synthesis of news reports which constitutes original research. Mangoe (talk) 14:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's very general, and could potentially cover historical situations dating back almost to 1776. Again: If this is a real, discrete situation that you've written about, what are reliable sources calling it? AlexTiefling (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would add to Walt's idea and make it "2014 children's immigration crisis in the United States". Yes, I know, a year, but that narrows it down to who (children), what (immigration crisis), where (US) and when (2014 is when it started), as otherwise assumes it is the only one that is or shall be with a title so generic.  Like all ongoing issues, it will be subject to renaming anyway once the media all agree upon a common name.  As a temporary name, this seems a reasonable compromise that is easily understood. You could say "Children" is vague, but they aren't coming from one country, but from many, so it is justified.  I don't think substituting "Latino Children" would be helpful yet it is the only adj that fits and is concise. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  16:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep although it needs improvement. The issue has had substantial discussion on mainstream radio in the United States and therefore is notable.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per above - Although It could do with a tidy up that can be fixed, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  17:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - This is not an encyclopedic topic, it reads more like a blogger advocating for a cause, grabbing various immigration-related news article to support the argument. Tarc (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep but see if the article can be turned into a more general article about unaccompanied children who seek to immigrate to the US. For UK, there is a generalUnaccompanied asylum-seeking children in the United Kingdom article that may be used as a model. It doesn't seem like all or a majority of the children coming to the US are actually seeking standard asylum, so a somewhat different scope and title may be in order. But the topic is hardly restricted to 2013/2014 even if there is a surge now. Iselilja (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * My thinking was that the crisis happened in 2014, before that, we could handle the normal load. This is many time higher than normal, so much so that we are literally having to rent warehouses as temporary bunk houses.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  21:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:SYNTH WP:NOTADVOCATECombatWombat42 (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What am I advocating other than accurate significant information about a notable subject? User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Not suitable as a foundation for a neutral, encyclopedic article, and, as such, theoretical other articles are irrelevant. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It is an international crisis that affect tens of thousands of children rushing to the US from a variety of countries and has overwhelmed the world's only "superpower", enough to grab headlines on a global scale. If that doesn't serve as a basis for an article, nothing does.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  00:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, based on the several hundred news accounts by now with wide international coverage;, this is of major political significance not just now but in the future. Tho the title should be qualified , perhaps to ' "2014 Children's immigration crisis in the United States",  as suggested above. And we do need to be careful about NPOV.  Even for the usual WP tendency to hide its collective head in the sand about serious matters, I'm amazed to see the opposition to the article.  Along with Kww, I don't see this as an attack of any sort at all--the facts of the matter may imply political criticism, depending on one's own political view of the world,  but that's up to the reader.  And indeed the various press comments do need to be much more fully included.    DGG ( talk ) 23:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG. This is very big news in the U.S., and the news reports leave a lot of things very unclear that I would like to see Wikipedia delve into.  For example, recently some anti-illegal-immigration protesters lined up and forced some busses loaded with illegal immigrant kids to turn back from an immigration detention center, while pro-illegal-immigration protesters were calling for them to be let through... no, I don't have that backwards.  Issue worth explaining. Wnt (talk) 00:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Obviously passes GNG. The way it is written is not a reason for delete. Okay per WP:NOTNEWS as this should have "enduring notability", and WP:EFFECT with its likely catalytic and "lasting effects". Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep this not only meets WP:GNG it very easily exceeds it. This event is being as widely covered in the US as the 2014 Crimean crisis was, in some aspects even more so.  WP:NOTNEWS does not apply as this will have significant impact on US immigration policy and political ramifications for the upcoming 2014 US Election cycle.  If there are WP:NPOV issues, those can be dealt with on the talk page and with future edits. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪   ߷  ♀ 投稿 ♀  05:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment From what I have read of the delete !votes above, it seems to me that all but 's are little more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪   ߷  <sub style="color:#006400">♀ 投稿 ♀  05:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - sources in the article and others presented at this AfD lead me to conclude that this crisis is a major international event between the US and Mexico and therefore of encyclopaedic importance. However, I think a better title would be something more akin to "2014 United States immigration crisis". <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename This is a verious serious and ongoing issue. If you search children immigration, you can find thousands of articles. I would suggest renaming to something like "2013-14 United States immigration crisis" or something similar.  Jay  Jay What did I do? 19:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The reasons given in the nomination simply do not wash. The topic is clearly notable, and there is ample coverage in reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.31.233 (talk) 04:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per WikiDan61 and others above. Notable event which is already frequently being cited as an influential factor in the 2014 elections. -Helvetica (talk) 06:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep This issue continues to grow in relevance, for example, Sarah Palin's call for impeachment based primarily on immigration policy. Clearly notable. --Cayzle (talk) 10:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Palin's un-credible call is notable? AlanS (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Whether or not you personally believe Palin's comments are valid, Palin is a prominent figure in US politics and her comments are notable, because they receive significant press coverage. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Are her comments credible though? AlanS (talk) 15:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As to her own opinions yes, provided she was quoted in a reliable source. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Credible is not the same as notable. Whether or not there is a snowball's chance in hell that her call for impeachment will be followed, it is a verifiable fact that she made the statements.  That's all that matters here.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong delete Reads like a synthy blog about an ongoing event. Any relevant information should be passed onto the Illegal Immigration to the United States page. Juno (talk) 17:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The article was created by moving and expanding the section Illegal Immigration to the United States. It is far too long and detailed to be be put back there. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Needs to be improved, of course, but it's a legitimate article. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete I'm sorry but I just don't understand how today's hot CNN story deserves an article in an encyclopedia. Please start your own blog and dump this there. Focus people. MiracleMat (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It was NYT's coverage which got me interested, but other major coverage was in The Guardian, and Democracy Now. The matter is of concern to the Department of Homeland Security, the United Nations, the President of the United States and both houses of Congress. Yes, please focus. Research shows that the surge in immigration by unaccompanied minors has been building since 2011, doubling in volume each year. DHS first noted it when it was only about 5,000, but doubling adds up, now it is 60,000 and severely taxing federal resources. User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep with improvement This is more than just a "news story" as many users are claiming it to be- it is a notable time in US history covered in nearly every news source daily. Yes, it may need to be neutralized but that doesn't constitute deletion. Those are easy fixes. As events continue to unfold, we can continue to update the page. Once the situation settles down a bit, we can make mass improvements and revisions to the page.Just my two cents. Meatsgains (talk) 08:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, but change the title The title is POV pushing; a more neutral tone is needed for the article. I accept though that any title that includes a descriptive word like "problem", "crisis", "difficulties" or even "issues" will automatically give it a non-neutral feel.  For wont of any other title, I would go with "2013-14 United States immigration crisis" or similar, as suggested above. Stephen! Coming... 06:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just noticed that Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in the United Kingdom was highlighted above. A similar title Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in the United States would be much more neutral, and if this article could be modelled on the UK article, it would be much more encyclopoedic. Stephen! Coming... 07:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As noted in the article, Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in the United Kingdom is a term of art used by reliable sources. It would be WP:OR/WP:SYNTH to coin a parallel phrase for the USA. I've asked several times what the US situation is being called by reliable sources - not least because if they've given it a consistent name, it's good evidence that it exists as a discrete topic rather than a slanted POV of a wider thing we already cover. No-one has provided this. So again: What is the situation at hand being called by reliable sources, please? AlexTiefling (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * That assumes all the children are seeking "asylum", which I don't think is the case. Many are trying to catch up with their parents, who are already here, so the title would be inaccurate.  I can't speak for the other article, which the title may apply to fully, only to this, which it would not.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  13:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Valid spin-off article from Illegal Immigration to the United States. Massive media coverage (flies over GNG bar) and part of current history (as opposed to common news). Add a date to the title if that makes people feel better. Carrite (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep – The rationales for deletion are wanting. First, the majority of them are WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems that are not a valid reason to delete the article.  "Articles should not be deleted as punishment because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet."  Per WP:UGLY, in "the Wiki model, an article which may currently be poorly written, poorly formatted, lack sufficient sources, or not be a comprehensive overview of the subject, can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws."  So the fact that the title is wrong or it's not the world's most academic prose is not a reason to delete the article.  Also, maybe some people think the article is somehow offensive or non-neutral, but that problem is not similar to the stated examples of low-quality content that might warrant deletion ("problems like copyright infringement, advertising, patent nonsense, or unsourced negative statements in biographies of living people"). Second, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER is completely inapplicable.  It says "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia."  This highly visible controversy is not in any way akin to "routine news reporting on ... celebrities."  If the subject of an article is in the news, that doesn't mean that the subject is not notable.  Moreover, the article has a variety of non-newspaper sources, like the report of the UN refugee commissioner.  Overall, I think this is just another instance of a misguided "attack of the it's-not-a-newspaper police".   AgnosticAphid  talk 01:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - When I saw the tag on the top of the article saying that the article was being considered for deletion, I almost couldn't believe my eyes.  But then I thought for a second, and was like, sure, there are very UPTIGHT AND ILLOGICAL PEOPLE on Wikipedia.    Sighs.   The rationales for deletion, frankly speaking, are vapid and weak.  The "Wikipedia is not a news outlet" argument is incredibly lame-o, as this matter is not just run-of-the-mill "news", but a crisis and a stand-alone situation.   Otherwise why does Wikipedia have articles on other news events such as wars and uprisings.    Let's be consistent and logical here.   This matter goes beyond "today's hot CNN story".  It's a crisis and has caused major stirs and problems.   The bottom line is that this matter is stand-alone, and copiously sourced, and is a big internationally known SITUATION...with potential (and even actual and current) economic and political ramifications and consequences.   Just like any other invasion or war or "crisis".   Remember, this is considered a crisis, an emergency, and issue.   Where even the Pope of Vatican City has weighed in.  Wikipedia would be derelict if it didn't have an article (a separate article) on this matter.   WP has articles on current events all the time, with no "considered for deletion" tags on top.  Not sure why some feel there should be one for this.  Strong keep.  This matter is fairly big, and arguably meets Wikipedia standards for a stand-alone article.  Given that it's a notable stand-alone subject.   Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 05:20, 16 July 2014 (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.