Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NAFTA's Impact on US Employment

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The result was keep (nomination withdrawn). A merger can be dicussed on the talk page, but would require consensus to implement. Sandstein (talk) 13:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NAFTA's Impact on US Employment

NAFTA's Impact on US Employment (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Essay article that has come from a project that seems to specifically adding essays to Wikipedia at User:Globalecon/Global Economics. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Actually, I think this is not so bad an article, comparatively. It may need to be merged with the main NAFTA page, but I would say that just because it is part of the ill-fated school project doesn't mean it should be deleted. Noble Story (talk) 15:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• merge relevant details to main NAFTA page Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, I think it's notable enough to keep as a main article. Noble Story (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep- It looks as good as a normal Wikipedia article and contains useful information. At the most we should merge but deletion would be such a waste of information... and time. -- penubag  (talk) 15:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Another Comment It seems to me that after so many bad articles were created by the school project, there is now a backlash against other any new articles created. In reality, I think that if this was a "normal" new article, it would be kept. Noble Story (talk) 15:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Noble Story on this. -- penubag  (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep or at the very most merge. This is a useful, well written article, properly referenced, unlike most of the (absolutely dire) ones produced by the GlobalEcon school project so far. It just needs some wikifying. I entirely concur with Noble Story's comments re judging each article on its own merit and avoiding backlash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voceditenore (talk • contribs) 16:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and either merge or rename. Merging may be undesired, since the main NAFTA article is large enough, and merging this well referenced information back into the article would be against WP:SUMMARY. The name may need to be tweaked, but that's a cleanup issue, not a deletion one. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Properly sourced with significant coverage. Motive is not a reason to get rid of an otherwise acceptable article. Jim Miller (talk) 18:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as a reasonable article. It's a subarticle from the main NAFTA page, so a merge might be undesirable as Jayron32 says. I think this just needs some cleanup. Compared to the rest of the stuff to emerge from that class, this is quite good). Bfigura ^(talk) 18:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I'm surprised to agree, but this is a reasonable stab at an article that fits into the project. I suspect it would be better titled and scoped as Effects of NAFTA in the United States or something like that. --Dhartung | Talk 19:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• KeepSeems ok. Most of the sources are garbage, though. I guess that is what you get when you are looking for the two extreme viewpoints on NAFTA. Protonk (talk) 04:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Merge Really belongs in the NAFTA page, surely; based upon the usefulness of a page on the effects of the impact upon US Employment, if page kept as is, you could argue that pages based detailing "impact upon country X" should also be created. Given the driving point is the NAFTA agreement, which has a page, relevant, sourced information from this page should be merged there, given it's a direct cause/effect relationship. Minkythecat (talk) 13:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment And if sources could be found for those pages (impact on x), and NAFTA was deemed to have a notable impact on employment there, I wouldn't see the harm in creating the artices. At present, this is a sub-page of the NAFTA article, so merging back probably isn't needed per WP:SUMMARY. --Bfigura ^(talk) 13:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I was just going to say the same thing as Bfigura. Plus, the NAFTA article is already quite long. Voceditenore (talk) 13:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: One of the poster children for the innate lack of merit of the insta-AfD approach. Given that the subject's been on the lips of every populist politician since NAFTA was created, to suggest that the subject is unencyclopedic is mind-boggling. Let's give this some time, perhaps?  RGTraynor  16:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep the article works for me. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge whatever's salvageable. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy for this to be withdrawn now since it's obviously going to be kept. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:24, 2 May 2008 (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.