Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trump administration migrant detentions


 * 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. This isn't only a matter of numbers, but the "delete" arguments are uncommonly weak. They basically only allege WP:NPOV problems, but do not indicate why only deletion (rather than editing the article) can resolve these problems. Neutrality, on Wikipedia, does not mean treating both sides in a controversy the same, but, rather, reflecting the views expressed in reliable sources. No substantial argument is made how the article is deficient in this regard, or how, if it is, this cannot be remedied by adding other reliably sourced points of view rather than by deleting the article. This applies also to the supposedly deficient coverage of similar issues in previous administrations. This perceived deficiency will not be remedied by deleting this article.  Sandstein  07:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Trump administration migrant detentions

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is just a NPOV COATRACK disgrace of an article. If one truly wanted to make an article worthy of an encyclopedia, one would have need to TNT this and perhaps have a history section and mention OBAMA and his detention center and deportation. As it stands now, it just seems like yet again, another Trump article for the sake of Trump article. I get that we need to bash Trump, I do, but the bias in this article is just too heavy handed that I think even for Wikipedia it's too much. It's as if illegal immigration suddenly started with President Trump. I think we need to stop with these Trump articles. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment as the author of this article recently found out, there is already an article in mainspace called Immigration detention in the United States. I am not sure why we need another article when this one already covers the subject, had someone done a little digging. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep for now - I’m not a fan of articles on recent events. But, it’s difficult to see how this affair is not going to stand the test of time. We can always look at this later and see if it should be deleted/merged. Although, Trump articles are so large, merges can be prohibitive. Also, I really think the AfD filing should have shown less bias itself. O3000 (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I agree with the article creator that there is room for an article of this kind, which there are plenty of RS for, and even though there exist many other articles in this genre such as Trump administration family separation policy, Migrant deaths along the Mexico-United States border, Operation Streamline etc. But according to this source (for example), the current president and his administration can simply not be the primary focus of this topic, although they do figure big in it. Let the article come back in another form under a generic name about border detentions spanning back 20 years, and include in it sections about each president and administration's policies since then for the sake of NPOV. StonyBrook (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The Newsweek link you provided wrote: While conditions were poor under Obama's administration, some things appear to have grown worse during Trump's tenure. This source has now been cited in the article, and another source linked from it was also cited, with a new section on Trump administration migrant detentions.  starship .paint  (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's an improvement. But it doesn't address the fact that these detentions have been occurring on the watch of previous presidents, who are all sworn to secure the national borders. Isn't it better to have one article on their collective border enforcement records instead of the present one, Obama administration migrant detentions, etc? This source could be the starting point for Bush administration migrant detentions. StonyBrook (talk) 00:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * - if there were few sources on each administration's detentions, such that the article topic would not pass the WP:General notability guideline, but that collectively sources covering all administrations combined would pass the general notability guideline, then one article would be better. Right now the number of reliable sources (50, potentially more) on the topic easily establish that this is a noteworthy standalone topic. I read the NPR link you provided, I don't think there's a very strong link. The man said: once they're released, is that it takes years to hear their cases. - but this article is about conditions before release.  starship .paint  (talk) 01:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I get your point. But it does also say The arrival of single adults, as he says, across the border is not unusual compared to prior surges that occurred during the Obama administration. If your premise is that something extraordinary is happening with individual migrants under Trump, I don't see it. StonyBrook (talk) 01:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * - this article isn't Migrant numbers during the Trump administration. This article is chiefly about the detentions (not the migrations). Thus far, the sources I've seen are focusing on the detention conditions, which I believe, is the noteworthy issue here.  starship .paint  (talk) 01:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, to reply to your earlier point, we can have both this article and United States migrant detentions, but someone has to work on that. Oh, I just found out that Immigration detention in the United States exists. So that's that.  starship .paint  (talk) 01:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Changing my vote to keep after re-reading WP:SPINOFF. Trump article being diverted off the parent seems to be okay so long as the multiple sources are presented neutrally. Some work remains to shore up the parent article to reflect past and present general trends. StonyBrook (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete also agree this is a NPOV COATRACK. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Explain yourself, . So, per the essay WP:COATRACK, this article is pretending to be on Trump administration migrant detentions, but is really on what other topic exactly?  starship .paint  (talk) 23:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Much of this article could be salvaged for other articles if made to comply with NPOV. This topic itself is not worthy, though the topic of America's detention centers in general, maybe, though not my call there. Jerry (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So, topic with 50 reliable sources present is not worthy. How does the article not comply with NPOV?  starship .paint  (talk) 00:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This article should probably cover the use of detention camps by * all * relevant administrations instead of just one. I see no reason why there should be an article for just one president just because he got more media attention than the previous one. Jerry (talk) 01:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , Immigration detention in the United States exists. There is a reason why there should be an article for this particular president, because media outlets are reliable sources too, and there is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, per WP:GNG. Also, the attention is not exclusive to media outlets - the U.N. has commented, the Prime Minister of U.K. has commented, various lawmakers have commented, and the administration's officials have reacted.  starship .paint  (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete for a number of reasons, one of them being the essentially POV-y title. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Adding all this information to the main article on migrant detentions would be WP:UNDUE. The rationale for deletion is completely bereft of any Wikipedia policy based arguments and is purely WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as the subject of this article was widely covered in the news media and is notable. WP:NOTCENSORED so we don't need to protect Trump by limiting the number of articles about him. If the detentions under Obama were truly worthy of their own page then go and make one - that has no bearing on this page.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You know, ZXCVBNM, one of these days some admin is going to start leaving warnings for those who infer "IDONTLIKEIT" without giving a valid reason for it. The rationale is clearly not "bereft of any Wikipedia policy based arguments"--COATRACK is an argument. And censorship simply doesn't apply here. Look up WP:AGF, will you. Drmies (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "Coatrack disgrace of an article" isn't a policy based argument. There was no evidence offered as to why it was a coatrack article besides "Obama did it too". So, no, it doesn't have any cogent policy based arguments.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think NOTCENSORED means what you think it means. Also, can you please read the first paragraph in the background section and let me know if it makes sense to you?Sir Joseph (talk) 19:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * - I've rearranged it, let me know if you still can't understand.  starship .paint  (talk) 03:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete, the content of the page has been improved, but the subject itself is flawed. As noted by others, the content present here could be merged into several other already related articles and the title isn't the best. 136.57.207.196 (talk) 04:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Migrant Detention has been an ongoing issue - it's not a Trump one. If one wants to do the issue justice - go out of your way to be neutral. Being partisan will only do these important issues a huge disservice.  MaskedSinger (talk) 04:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * - the article makes no attempt to hide that it is an ongoing issue. As you can see from Trump administration migrant detentions, we have mentions of the administrations of Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr, (and Clinton, after this statement was made), Bush Jr, and Obama.  starship .paint  (talk) 04:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * - What about the rest of what I wrote? MaskedSinger (talk) 04:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What about it? You asked me to be neutral, but haven't elaborated. Perhaps the article seems negative because the sources themselves are negative on this issue. You implied I was partisan, but haven't elaborated. Instructions are unclear. How have I been partisan when I've added responses from Republicans, such as Trump, Pence, Graham? I noticed I missed the Clinton administration. That's been added now.  starship .paint  (talk) 04:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, per .  Cassianto Talk  12:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * - mind explaining (other than just claiming) exactly how does this article violate NPOV?  starship .paint  (talk) 13:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep as a separate subject about the recent and currently ungoing campaign of detentions. This is a separate campaign because Trump administration expanded the scope of rapid deportations. There is a plenty of sources. It could be merged to Immigration policy of Donald Trump but the latter article is already too large. My very best wishes (talk) 19:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment to elaborate, there's no question migrant detention as an issue is notable, and the Trump Administration's stance on this immigration issue is also notable and a large enough topic to be covered, but there are existing topics for those. There is nothing in this article which doesn't fit in another article. The inclusion of comparison to past administration's is fine to expand the topic, but then why an article for "Trump Administration"? (I understand it was likely added to address NPOV concerns from others.) From the standpoint of an encyclopedia meant for a wider audience, a subsection in migrant detention, or a results section in the existing policy page is probably more warranted for what's contained here. My suggestion is that having one clear topic which covers an issue across time and administrations, rather than a specific Wikipedia page for what will end up historically as just one controversy among many is a much cleaner approach than multiple overlapping articles. With the current article name, it's going to be limited to information which really belongs elsewhere. 136.57.207.196 (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - (1) topic easily passes WP:GNG (60kB, 83 reliable sources including 15 academic ones). Merging it into Immigration detention in the United States (85kB, 104 sources) would result in WP:UNDUE weight on this topic, so it's a valid WP:SPINOFF. (2) Concerns were raised (as was WP:NPOV) about past administrations' doings, which have been addressed with a 800+ words section on Trump administration migrant detentions, with nine comparisons with Obama's, three to Bush Jr, two to Clinton, two to Reagan, one to Bush Sr, and one to Carter. (3) Concerns about POV-y title can be addressed if someone actually suggests a better title, there's no need to delete the article if you can move it. Migrant detentions under the Trump administration? (4) I made attempts to discuss COATRACK/NPOV above, so I won't repeat them. I've taken steps to remedy the article based on concerns raised on this page, but I can't do more without explanations and specific examples of problematic parts.  starship .paint  (talk) 09:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep: delete !voters have asserted the article violates NPOV but have provided little detail as to which aspects are problematic and why. Easily passes GNG. Merging seems inappropriate due to the size of potential target articles. – Teratix ₵ 06:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep It's not against a "neutral point of view" to write about a subject people don't like. The article is long, well-cited, features photos, has an entire section comparing this to past administrations. No coatrack issue here if the title of the article is "Trump administration migrant detentions" and that's what it covers. This is obviously an ongoing issue and we'd be lying if we pretended this hasn't garnered significant attention. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 13:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong keep I agree with points made by, , . There are a number of related ongoing court cases where more information we be published. Extraneous content can be deleted in the future if necessary to trim the article.Oceanflynn (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong keep The article should be kept. The immigration policies are major issues and the immigration policies of the Trump Administration should be forked out to separate pages. There may be an argument for merger with family detention, but there should not be a deletion.Theoallen1 (talk) 03:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep The subject meets WP:GNG, the article shows significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, including comparison with other administrations. I believe it presents the information in a neutral manner, and if there are any questions about that, that is a matter of content not a reason for deletion. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:17, 31 July 2019 (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.