Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Migration from Latin America to Europe


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor Talk! 00:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Migration from Latin America to Europe

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article mainly relies on primary sources, and seems to be a compilation of data that resembles original research. Furthermore, it lacks inline citations, and seems to be an indiscriminate collection of information. It also contains a quite a few peacock phrases, making me wonder about WP:NPOV.

It is possible that a legitimate article could be written on this topic, but this article isn't it. RGloucester — ☎ 03:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - if a topic is notable it's notable; there are entire books written about the subject. Deletion is not cleanup.  —Мандичка YO 😜 18:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Plenty of sources, including 23 inline citations at this writing. Needs cleanup, obviously. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  19:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep As the tags indicate, this article is problematic because of grammar issues and/or incomplete research. The subject is notable though and should be cleaned up. Tangledupinbleu chs (talk) 23:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's not a pretty article, but cleanup is preferable to deletion, as has been stated by others in this thread. Article meets WP:GNG; to delete the article now wouldn't prevent someone from writing about it again in the future. Better that someone improves and adds on to the existing article rather than have someone build a new article from scratch. GabeIglesia (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2015 (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.