Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commuter worker

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) Happy Festivities! // J 947 ^{^(c)} 20:31, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commuter worker

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Completely unreferenced - for 12 years Rathfelder (talk) 11:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 11:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but open a discussion about a move/rename. The concept is undoubtedly notable and covered by numerous RSs, see: [1], [2], [3], [4] just for a taste. However, the terminology used varies, including 'commuter alien' (or 'alien commuter'), and just 'commuter'. I'm not convinced that 'commuter worker' is sufficiently specific, since that is more or less synonymous with 'commuter. However, the article should absolutely be kept and a discussion about the correct name can then be had on the article talk page. Hug^syrup 12:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is certainly scope for an article about cross-border working, but this isnt it. Rathfelder (talk) 10:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? What is the argument for deletion other than 'completely unreferenced', which is no longer the case? Hug^syrup 10:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great improvement, thank you. But the article gives the impression that this is an issue only on the Mexico – United States border.Rathfelder (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree, and I’d like to keep working on it as I think it has potential, but I think those sorts of issues can be dealt with outside of the scope of the deletion discussion. Hug^syrup 20:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unreferenced is not a delete reason per WP:NEXIST. An ambitious editor has now added sources. Lightburst (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree its now worth keeping. Rathfelder (talk) 08:30, 23 December 2019 (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.