Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mexicans in Germany

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. The article is notable with adequate WP:RS and thus passes WP:GNG (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 15:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mexicans in Germany[edit]

[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)

Too small for separate article, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 23:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 16:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not "too small" based on the current volume of the page. This is invalid justification for deletion. My very best wishes (talk) 04:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the reliable 3rd party sourcing that provides indepth coverage is not there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - perfectly good stub; no valid deletion criteria. Bearian (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 12:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is not too small and, in any case, that's not a reason to delete. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per above. --Fish and karete (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC) Striking sock !vote[reply]

Keep: The article is at a respective size (and even a two-sentence stub wouldn't be prima facie grounds for deletion), and decently sourced; this isn't even stub-class, I'd rank it Start-class. Since it's been unchanged since months before the nomination, I'm frankly puzzled. Ravenswing 15:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid, notable topic with plenty of potential sources available. Puzzling indeed. --Lockley (talk) 03:52, 8 August 2020 (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.