Deletion of Children's immigration crisis

Comment: The article's title is vague?  OK, so change it.  The article's  is showing?  OK, then |neutralize it. The article is an attack against Mexican immigrants? Not at all. Calling the immigration of these children illegal is not an attack against them, but merely a statement of fact. They are attempting to enter the country by means other than the normal legal immigration route, and thus their entry violates US laws and is ''de facto'' illegal. (By the way, the present crisis involves children mostly from Honduras, Nicaragua and Guatemala, not Mexico.)  Surely this is an ongoing issue that is generating a lot of press, and there should surely be sufficient coverage in reliable sources to build an article that covers all sides of the issue
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:POV||WP:NPOV)

Comment: This is not an encyclopedic topic, it reads more like a blogger advocating for a cause, |grabbing various immigration-related news article to support the argument
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: WP:SYNTH 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTADVOCATE)

Comment: ndash; The rationales for deletion are wanting.   First, the majority of them are  problems that are not a valid reason to delete the article.  "Articles should not be deleted as punishment because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet."  Per , in "the Wiki model, an article which may currently be poorly written, poorly formatted, lack sufficient sources, or not be a comprehensive overview of the subject, can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws."  So the fact that the title is wrong or it's not the world's most academic prose is not a reason to delete the article.  Also, maybe some people think the article is somehow offensive or non-neutral, but that problem is not similar to the stated examples of low-quality content that might warrant deletion ("problems like copyright infringement, advertising, patent nonsense, or unsourced negative statements in biographies of living people").  Second,  is completely inapplicable.  It says "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia."  This highly visible controversy is not in any way akin to "routine news reporting on ... celebrities."  If the subject of an article is in the news, that doesn't mean that the subject is ''not'' notable.  Moreover, the article has a variety of non-newspaper sources, like the report of the UN refugee commissioner.  Overall, I think this is just another instance of a misguided "attack of the it's-not-a-newspaper police
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:SURMOUNTABLE||WP:UGLY||WP:NOTNEWSPAPER)

Comment: This is plainly a |synthesis of news reports which constitutes |original research
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:OR)

Comment: Obviously passes GNG. The ''way'' it is written is not a reason for delete. Okay per  as this should have "enduring notability", and  with its likely catalytic and "lasting effects
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:EFFECT)

Comment: WP:NOTNEWS does apply here, but this is still - even according to U.S. Homeland Security - an unprecedented event in immigration, one that would warrant a separate article. I do not see how the article's content constitutes an attack against immigrants. In addition, deleting the article because it makes the U.S. President look bad is a misinterpretation of . I will submit that the article very badly needs further development to bring it up to encyclopedic par
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)