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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal immigrants in Malaysia[edit]

Illegal immigrants in Malaysia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original Research/Synthesis. I think this entry at the talk page sums the issue nicely:

Only 2 of the 16 sources cited actually support the text. The others are dead links, broken citations, biased source (crusading politician), or simply contain nothing relevant to the citing text. In addition, of the 11 sections, 3 contain no citations at all while 4 contain only faulty citations. Yet this article is long and detailed. That strongly suggests the possibility of original research. If better sources are not produced, then this article should be removed. --Zahzuhzaz (talk) 07:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it's high time to do so. This is a relatively touchy subject IMO and should be re-created as a balanced and well-sourced article Lenticel ^(talk) 06:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Lenticel ^(talk) 06:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Lenticel ^(talk) 06:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete really really bad synthesis. The "references" don't actually verify anything as far as I can tell.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 13:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep A reasonable idea for an article. Could certainly do with some heavy-duty editing, but Google throws up lots of sources on this topic in both national and international press[1][2][3][4][5] and doubtless you can get statistics and facts from the usual international bodies[6]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- this is purely a content issue; no reason has been given to delete this article. Acceptable content reasons for deletion might be if the article contains potentially libelous material (e.g. violations of BLP policy) which needs to be purged, or if the article content is totally irrelevant/nonsensical (in which case PROD or speedy would suffice). The issue is a topical one in Malaysia and clearly encyclopedic (nobody's even attempted to rebut that presumption here). As a content issue, my suggestion is to strip the entire thing down to a stub and start from scratch. The sources listed in the bibliography are generally acceptable per WP:RS (they consist generally of journalistic reports), and if folks are so concerned about inadequate sourcing, any mainstream Malaysian newspaper/news website can provide plenty, e.g. [7] [8] [9] Johnleemk | Talk 00:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is our policy to improve such articles, not to delete them. Warden (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think everyone here's on the page of having a well balanced article but differing in where to "start from scratch". My position is that this article is better off as a redlink so that knowledgeable Malaysian editors would be able to rebuild this article without the OR version influencing their work. If someone can make a decent stub article out of the mess it is in then I'm willing to withdraw (I think the best sources would be from Malaysia itself but I don't know their language). The problem is not that the sources is unreliable but how it is used incorrectly to promote a certain viewpoint. --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Probably most of the article should be deleted or rewritten, but there is a basic framework for an article. Start deleting unsatisfactory articles, and everything not FA or GA will be at AfD , After the keep, I urge someone to do a drastic trim. to get things started. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG, Col, Warden, and Johnleemk. This is not so bad that we have to blow it up and start from scratch (although if you want to see one that ought to be destroyed and started over again, see the horror at Donald Trump). Bearian (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well good luck with that. Only one ref is salvageable. And it verifies only one sentence of the article which reads more like an essay. I for one think WP:TNT is quite appropriate here. The topic is notable, no one disputes that. But seriously, unless anyone can actually show that any part of the article can be kept, this AfD is more than justified. Unless you're all okay with an article that has exactly one sentence saying "Some non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have placed the number of illegal immigrants in the state of Sabah alone in the realm of two million, comprising two-thirds of the state's population."?-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.