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. Thanks everyone for participating. :) Please assume good faith with my decision. If you believe this article was deleted without good reason, please request undeletion at deletion request, not my talk page. Thank you. SarahStierch (talk) 03:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mexicans in Argentina[edit]

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

This appears to be original research - particularly since there are no sources. I also question notability. Other opinions would be helpful, though. CaroleHenson (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 02:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 02:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I didn't read the article closely but I do know a little about the subject myself. The subject itself is a notable and encyclopedic topic, as Mexicans in most of the "Southern Cone" (Brazil/Chile/Argentina) are somewhat of an oppressed and socially and economically marginalized class, even more so than in the United States. (Due to reasons that Mexico and the USA share geographic proximity and that overt racism is becoming less acceptable there). The plight of Mexicans in Argentina has been extensively studied in both the popular press and academic works. Fine sources can easily be found for this topic. Hector the Toad (talk) 03:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Since, this is being added to other discussion list, I thought it was worth noting that there are other similar articles that link to Template:Immigration to Argentina. I was wondering if instead there should be one article that pulls the various ethnic/national components together.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - currently, this is basically original research via an unsourced essay. However, the topic appears to be notable. What to do? Bearian (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - since there are two votes for notability, how about tag the article for essay? It's already tagged for OR and needing references.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite Northamerica1000's defense for the article, it's not anything like that. It's just an original research article. Should this even have somebody willing to write and source an appropriate article, the title should be "Mexican people in Argentina". I'm not sure what the convention is, but WP:AT doesn't really give a guide for it. --rm 'w a vu 06:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rm w a vu: You must be referring to User:Hector the Toad's !vote above; I only provided deletion sorting for this discussion.

Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, my bad. --rm 'w a vu 22:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the title should be "Mexican people in Argentina" --- The only case where "people" is necessary is when the demonym alone can't be pluralised, e.g. Burmese, Surinamese, etc. Pluralisable demonyms like Koreans and Bangladeshis and Mexicans are generally written as such, rather than with "people" appended. 61.10.165.33 (talk) 06:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero references and what appears to be WP:OR about a really tiny group of people (<2K, if we are to believe the unsourced number). How can anyone draw any meaningful conclusions from such a miniscule sliver of Argentine society? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to play devil's advocate, but notability isn't always defined based on numeric value, but can be on ubiquity, should there have been a particularly eventful reason for the occupation, or if the Mexicans once had power, or were slaves, but if (and I say if not being any kind of authority on the matter) the exicans in Argentina simply represent 0.05% of the population and have had nothing resulting in any turnaround in the world, Mexico or Argentina, then I agree, but those grounds do not suffice as per WP:INN. --rm 'w a vu 22:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment / Question. Somehow, there became a branching off of approaches for creating articles about ethnic or national groups in Argentina. This is one of several with a naming convention of Mexicans in Argentina, Koreans in Argentina, Indians in Argentina, etc. while there are other, longstanding and indepth articles with another naming convention German Argentines.

The articles seem to be brought together in the Template:Immigration to Argentina.

There is an article, though, Ethnography of Argentina that seems to be a branching off place for the German Argentines types of articles, but does not seem to mention Mexico.

Should there be a consistent approach for naming, types of article content and layout... while using well cited information?--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Given that all of the groups in question have different migration histories (some stretching back centuries, others a few decades at most), different levels of integration into Argentine society, and come from homelands with their own different popular conceptions of & academic approaches towards studying their diasporae, I don't see why you'd expect that there would be a "consistent approach for naming". And certainly it's not Wikipedia's place to impose such a convention where none exists among reliable sources: WP:NC(CN) and all that.

For another example of this, see the U.K. and its former empire, where some migrant/minority groups are called by the reverse of the American convention (e.g. British Chinese and Malaysian Siamese), while others groups are called by purely descriptive titles like Brazilians in the United Kingdom, Bangladeshis in Malaysia, and Chinese people in Sri Lanka because double-barreled demonyms are not the most common way that reliable sources refer to those groups.61.10.165.33 (talk) 05:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreation. Wikipedia loses nothing by WP:TNTing this unsourced essay. I suspect there are academic studies and the like somewhere, but FWIW I looked in Worldcat, online Argentine newspapers, and the like and failed to sift out any significant coverage, only scattered factoids like that Mexicans form 5% of foreign students in Buenos Aires. Also, oppose redirect or merger with immigration to Argentina: there's nothing sourced to merge, and redirecting to that article (which has no sourced contents about Mexicans besides a population number) involves WP:POV/WP:OR issues, implying that Mexicans in Argentina should be analysed primarily as immigrants to Argentina rather than as members of the Mexican diaspora. 61.10.165.33 (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article has not much content, and no sources at all. If there is an encyclopedic article that can be written about this ethnic group, someone can try to write it another time when they have some good sources to base the article on. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2014 (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.