Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European immigration to Brazil


 * 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 personally not sold on the keep, but conse nsus says otherwise.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 05:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

European immigration to Brazil

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Speedy (A10. Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic) declined.

This is an ad-verbatim copy-paste of Immigration to Brazil, sections "Brief History," "First Period"-"Fourth Period". I don't know why this wouldn't meet A10. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as duplicate material.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions.  cab (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions.  cab (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Immigration to Brazil is somewhat long and could do with being split into subtopics. Though I don't know if splitting by continent of origin is the best way of doing it. European immigration to Brazil seems reasonable as a redirect, at least. cab (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment The article has been recently created. Evidently it is initially based on "Immigration to Brazil", but the intention is to develop along two different lines.


 * First, it should deal with part of the material included in Immigration to Brazil that consists in speculation about the relation between race and immigration. While this relation is undeniable, it is grossly oversimplified in Immigration to Brazil and related articles, which assume a very particular POV - that the predominance of European immigration to Brazil is exclusively or mainly due to racist positions of the Brazilian government and landed classes. This evidently is part of the discussion, but there are many other aspects involved - one of them the fact that Europe was in fact an emigration region in the period considered, while Africa and most of Asia weren't. But an article about Immigration to Brazil shouldn't be encumbered by this discussion. One could perhaps argue that Emigration from Europe should be the solution, but that article deals with a different material, starting in the 16th century - and besides, it again shouldn't be encumbered by a particular discussion about Brazil.


 * Second, it should help freeing White Brazilian from wild assumptions that equate White Brazilians to European immigrants to Brazil and their descendants - which most of them are not. This would allow White Brazilian to deal in more depth with the sociological significant aspects of being White in Brazil, particularly in their relation to non-Whites (White Brazilian, in spite of some improving earlier this year, is still plagued by the unstated but pervasive POV that there are "true" Whites and "false" Whites in Brazil, the former being identified with descendants of immigrants, which totally confuses this discussion and causes the article to be encumbered with immigration issues). 201.47.160.36 (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I am now noticing some sort of agenda here (see Talk:European_immigration_to_Brazil). If not A10, then POV-fork. Probably also a copyvio which breaks WP licenses due to incorrect WP:Splitting. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No POV fork. The issues to be dealt in this article are not different views on a same subject, but rather subjects that cannot be adequately dealt within the articles in which they are now crammed, causing confusion. Perfectly in accordance to Wikipedia's policy as defined here:


 * In some cases refactoring an article into child or sister articles can allow subtopics to be discussed more fully elsewhere without dominating a general overview article to which they are non-central (but only if the new articles are themselves sufficiently notable to include in the encyclopedia).


 * This is exactly the intention in this article: allow subtopics to be discussed more fully, without dominating a general overview article to which they are not central. And the new article does have enough notability to include in WP. Rather the other way round, this subject is messed into White Brazilian, where it does not belong, due to POV issues in that article, cramming it with material on immigration and preventing it from discussing relevant topics concerning racial relations in Brazil. Now if you can point to some POV in this article in its own merits, it is a different discussion. Ninguém (talk) 17:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd like to add that user Ninguem is continously REMOVING several sourced informations from several articles of Wikipedia. It seems that when he doesn't like an information, he removed it to hide it from readers. Somebody see his editions and will find that he is removing everything he deslikes. Somebody stop this user or he's going to destroy more and more articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.62.216.172 (talk) 02:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Rearranging the presentation of information between different articles isn't equivalent to "vandalism" or "destruction". I'm not sure I agree with all of Ninguém's rearrangement, but his basic assessment is right: there are a large number of articles which problematically conflate the two separate issues of immigration and racial identity. The Portuguese Brazilian article is quite a good example of this, mixing up colonisation and immigration, and imputing a hyphenated binational identity onto millions of people ("Brazilians with Portuguese ancestors") who wouldn't in the slightest identify as "Portuguese Brazilians". This is hardly the first time this problem came up --- last year we had an "Angolan Brazilian" article which tried to claim this was a notable identity because Portuguese West Africa was a major source of slaves in Brazil (despite the fact that their descendants haven't got the slightest identification with today's Republic of Angola). What's next, do we plan to rename the indigenous peoples of Brazil as "Mongolian Brazilians"? cab (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This version of Portuguese Brazilian will better exemplify what cab meant above. Complete with the sailors in Cabral's voyage being called "first settlers" in Brazil. Ninguém (talk) 16:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 21:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Let me "vote" before it is deleted by 1-0 - discussion apparently stalled. Ninguém (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. The intention is to split a long page into smaller sub pages and allow those pages to evolve without the original becoming unwieldy. That is standard practise. It hasn't been done very well, the original page hasn't been cut down and there isn't a proper link to the new page. These are matters for cleanup not deletion. Szzuk (talk) 10:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - this really doesn't seem an unreasonable way, in theory, to break down the topic of immigration into Brazil. I haven't looked deep into it enough to !vote "keep", but I can see that in theory this page can be made to work. TheGrappler (talk) 01:19, 14 June 2010 (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.