Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great wall in US-Mexico border


 * 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. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Great wall in US-Mexico border

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Considered this as possible A10 for Mexico–United States barrier or Immigration_policy_of_Donald_Trump, but figured it might be controversial so brining it to AfD. The "great wall" is by no means the common name for the Trump proposal, and our existing articles on the subject more than cover it with this simply being a content fork from either the barrier article or the Trump immigration policy article. There is no need for this article in Wikipedia at this time. I TonyBallioni (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity 22:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity 22:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * In the words of Ronald Reagan, "tear down this wall". Redundant and ungrammatical to boot. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I consider to expand this important article of actuality.
 * --Opus88888 (talk) 01:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect to Mexico–United States barrier. Already a perfectly good article on topic.Glendoremus (talk) 06:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * For now, simply redirect to Immigration_policy_of_Donald_Trump#U.S..E2.80.93Mexico_border_wall_proposal Executive Order 13767. Do not redirect to Mexico–United States barrier, as that is an article on the current structure, not Trump's highly notable plan, and there is basically no much less content on the plan there -- nor should there be. Such a redirect would confuse and mislead readers. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. The topic is obviously notable but it's already covered elsewhere. I don't think there's a need for the redirect since "in US-Mexico border" is ungrammatical and unlikely to come up. It would anyway need to be re-redirected later if a new wall is constructed and gets its own article. If it is to be made a redirect, it could go to either Mexico–United_States_barrier or Immigration_policy_of_Donald_Trump. Mortee (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete no redirect necessary because Mexico–United States barrier has got the topic covered, and as a search term, this adds nothing. < It's a big wall; hard to miss. .E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * '''Note that we already have Executive Order 13767.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh yes that would be the best redirect target, at this stage. I've modified my comment above. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * My main issue with a redirect at this stage is that because it is currently grammatically incorrect (I would have moved before AfD if I had noticed at the time), and that even if made "Great wall on the US-Mexico border", I doubt such a specific search term would be used, so I'm not sure the utility of a redirect. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think it's close enough for a redirect, per WP:CHEAP. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I can go along with a Redirect to Executive Order 13767. Harmless, WP:CHEAP, might even help some hapless soul searching for info on the topic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- no need for a redirect. I don't believe the project is known as the "Great wall", so a redirect would not be useful. The article appears to be a prank. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2017 (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.