Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Undocumented Farmworkers in California


 * 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 draftified. No point in keeping this open longer; WP:MfD is still available if deletion is still desired. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 18:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Undocumented Farmworkers in California

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article appears to be a university-related class assignment. As such, it does not comply with the WP:PURPOSE of WP. Much of the content simply restates POV about undocumented aliens, and has nothing to do with the overall concerns of farmworkers in CA. – S. Rich (talk) 06:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete the Wikipedia is not your Google Classroom, this doesn't belong here at all, and the rest of the entries from Wiki Ed/University of California, Berkeley/Environmental Justice Section 101 (Spring 2017) should probably be reviewed. ValarianB (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

This article was created as part of classroom work and such work is encouraged by a whole branch of the Wikipedia Foundation. Check out wikiedu.org. Further it is well documented and covers a topic that affects a large portion of agricultural workers in California. Finally, the arguments for deletion get personal (as in the reference to "your Google Classroom"), which is out of guidelines for Wikipedia EJustice (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The desires of the WMF do not override project policy though, such as WP:NOTESSAY. There's a section in the middle, Undocumented Farmworkers in California, that is just an outline, no substance at all. This isn't an article, it is homework. Having students learn to create articles may be laudable, but their work shouldn't have been made live without undergoing some sort of review process, such as Articles for Creation. ValarianB (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the WP:ENB and WP:ENI can help us. Anywhos, the course is not listed at Special:Courses. – S. Rich (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * please take a look. – S. Rich (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. This definitely got moved to mainspace too early. I'll userfy it. User:Ian (Wiki Ed) will probably follow up with the class more broadly tomorrow.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. Wiki Ed ought to require review by the WP:New pages patrol before these articles go into the mainspace. Also, please get the students and instructors tuned-in on the WP:NPOV channel. – S. Rich (talk) 00:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: I am reverting closure of this discussion, and I shall revert the move of the article to user space. It is perfectly legitimate to suggest userfication in a deletion discussion, but not to pre-empt discussion by summarily userfying. There are various possible outcomes, including consensus that the article should be userfied, but also including consensus that the page should be deleted, not userfied, and it is not reasonable for an editor to unilaterally prevent one or more possible outcomes from being available. While I have no reason to doubt that the intention behind the move was honourable, the effect was to prevent discussion as to whether the page should be deleted. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Further note: It seems to me that the comment I posted immediately above was not clearly thought out. I initially mentioned both the closure of the discussion and the moving of the article to user space, but in giving my reasons I concentrated only on the moving of the page, whereas on reflection I think the closure of the discussion was the real problem. The move of the page by User:Sage_(Wiki_Ed) was perhaps open to debate, but that alone would not have prevented discussion on the possibility of deletion: it would be far from the first time that I had seen a deletion discussion continue after the page under discussion had been moved to a new title. However, the premature closure of the discussion by User:Train2104 was a serious mistake, as it really did stand to prevent community discussion of a proposed deletion. The fact that a page has been moved certainly should not prevent further discussion of the deletion proposal. In view of this revised view of the matter, I shall return the page to userspace, but this discussion should still be allowed to continue. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * My initial thought was that the content should be upmerged to the Undocumented farmworkers article. But we don't have one. Farmworkers or Farm workers in the United States? Farm labor in the United States? Farm labor? That goes to Primary_sector_of_the_economy. Ok then, Agriculture in California? Nope. We have Farmworker and we have Migrant worker, apparently without a section on the US. I'm kinda floored by this apparent gap. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:26, 7 April 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.