Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of prisons in Ningxia
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- List of prisons in Ningxia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD, with reason "part of a series covering the whole of China". As none of the list items currently have articles, and the source provided does not have enough information to create such articles, this would appear to not meet the general notability guidelines. This appears more like a directory than an informative list, rather than an encylopedic entry. While I admire the intention to cover the whole of China, that does not mean that everything in China needs to have an entry, and a list which consists of no links to articles, or significant amounts of information, does not seem to be sufficient enough to meet the expectations at WP:LIST PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 11:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The nom's criticism seems directed only at the current state of the article, without regard to the potential of the topic. It is not adequate to only comment on the sources present within an article. I also don't think the "directory" characterization is substantive. Typically a NOTDIR problem is addressed by editing out unencyclopedic content. There is no contact info, no map, nothing that would actually enable people to use this to...what, visit the prisons? Whatever exactly a "prison directory" would do, I don't know. Which is not to say that there may not be a good and meaty rationale for deleting this; it just hasn't been presented yet. postdlf (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I should have made it clear in the nomination, but I did see if I could find alternative sources, but I couldn't find anything which appeared suitable for use as referencing here. Potential can be a valid reason to keep, but not when there is no indication of that potential! Of course, if someone else can do a better search and find significant coverage of the individual prisons, at reliable, independent sources which show that the individual prisons are notable enough to warrant an article (at the moment, an article of any of these prisons would only have the same content as the list content!), then that would be different - but to have none of the items in the list having an article? That's not the use of a list on Wikipedia. I gave the criteria for deletion above - it doesn't meet the notability criteria. The comment about NOTDIR said it was like a directory, not that it was a directory. Again, I repeat for clarity - this does not meet notability, which is a perfectly valid reason for deletion. Incidentally, there is a good venue for a comprehensive coverage of all things Chinese - at the Chinese-language Wikipedia. There are lots of valid subjects about China and matters Chinese on this Wikipedia - but not everything merits inclusion on this Wikipedia. I don't know what that Wikipedia's policy is on content, but this Wikipedia requires subjects to meet the notability criteria, with reliable independent sources giving significant coverage of the subject. This list does not meet that standard PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this just a test nomination? Because this is one of a series, in Category:Lists of prisons in China, and I see no reason to single out Ningxia. The split by region is simply for the sake of convenience and is a rather obvious way to subdivide it. You seem to be looking at this only as a navigational list, as we use to list articles grouped by a given topic, and so are fixated only on the question of whether each prison is notable. However, the broader topic of "prisons in China" is definitely notable even if not every individual prison merits an article. So if they are notable as a group, these lists may satisfy WP:LISTN ("Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable") or WP:LISTPURP#Information. Why is it not a reasonable part of covering the topic of prisons in China to list the prisons and some basic information about them? They are not so numerous as to make these lists trivial or indiscriminate. postdlf (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A quick response: no, this is not a test nomination. I came across it while looking for something else, and thought it didn't belong on Wikipedia. That's the only reason why I've nominated it. I hadn't even looked at other "Prisons in China" articles. As for "individual items in a list do not need to be notable" - that may be the case, but surely some of them need to have articles? I agree that the broader topic of Prisons in China would probably be notable, but I would have thought that the broader topic could either be mentioned (suitably sourced) in the Penal system in the People's Republic of China article - or an overall article Prisons in China (which currently links to the Penal system article) could be created. Again, this would need to be reliably sourced, etc. However, this list appears to do what a category would normally do... but which a category cannot do in this case, as none of the prisons have articles. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "...but surely some of them need to have articles?" Plenty do. See Category:Prisons in China. postdlf (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ... but not in this particular list, which is the one being discussed for deletion! Also, most of those consist of 1 short paragraph ("xxx is a prison in xxx. It has xxx cells. It is connected with xxxx prison firm", which hardly seems worth having an article about. If they all looked more like Tilanqiao Prison, it'd be a different matter... but again, none of the prisons on this list (which is the only one being discussed here) have articles - and a decent article on them would not be possible, as it would end up being an article consisting of exactly the same information as in the list. A case in point - List of prisons in Anhui has several prisons for which there is an article - but all of those articles repeat exactly the same information as the list article, albeit in prose-form rather than in table-form (in fact, most of the prison article have less information than the list article) PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is just a sublist by region of prisons in the whole country of China, split purely for size reasons. If they were merged together, your criticism of "this" list as lacking any notable prisons would clearly be completely irrelevant; the fact that it is presented in separate pages shouldn't change that, and it is completely aribitary to delete some of this content just because of the characteristics of one sublist. And the information you dismiss as not worth documenting is exactly the information I'd want to know about a prison--location, size and inmate population, and as the issue of China's forced labor is an important one, the industry its inmates work in. That's all important information about China's prisons, so even if that is all we can verify for a prison, that's enough to merit inclusion. But it's clear you're determined to win here, so let's wait for other opinions to see if this can be closed as anything but "no consensus", as I've decided upon keep based on my comments above and the lack of a compelling deletion rationale. postdlf (talk) 04:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I am not "determined to win" - if the consensus is to keep, I'm quite happy for that to be shown in a discussion here. I happen to think that this article should not be kept - and had no intention of nominating other, similar, articles, as I had not looked at them. If I wanted to do that, I would have nominated them at the same time. I respect your opinion, I just happen to disagree with it! But that's what makes Wikipedia successful in my opinion - the community makes decisions on such matters, and if the consensus should be that this should be kept, I'm quite happy to move on; if the consensus should be that this should be deleted, I'm quite happy to move on. Either way, I don't take personal satisfaction or disatisfaction. And on that note, that will probably be my last contribution to this discussion! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is just a sublist by region of prisons in the whole country of China, split purely for size reasons. If they were merged together, your criticism of "this" list as lacking any notable prisons would clearly be completely irrelevant; the fact that it is presented in separate pages shouldn't change that, and it is completely aribitary to delete some of this content just because of the characteristics of one sublist. And the information you dismiss as not worth documenting is exactly the information I'd want to know about a prison--location, size and inmate population, and as the issue of China's forced labor is an important one, the industry its inmates work in. That's all important information about China's prisons, so even if that is all we can verify for a prison, that's enough to merit inclusion. But it's clear you're determined to win here, so let's wait for other opinions to see if this can be closed as anything but "no consensus", as I've decided upon keep based on my comments above and the lack of a compelling deletion rationale. postdlf (talk) 04:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ... but not in this particular list, which is the one being discussed for deletion! Also, most of those consist of 1 short paragraph ("xxx is a prison in xxx. It has xxx cells. It is connected with xxxx prison firm", which hardly seems worth having an article about. If they all looked more like Tilanqiao Prison, it'd be a different matter... but again, none of the prisons on this list (which is the only one being discussed here) have articles - and a decent article on them would not be possible, as it would end up being an article consisting of exactly the same information as in the list. A case in point - List of prisons in Anhui has several prisons for which there is an article - but all of those articles repeat exactly the same information as the list article, albeit in prose-form rather than in table-form (in fact, most of the prison article have less information than the list article) PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "...but surely some of them need to have articles?" Plenty do. See Category:Prisons in China. postdlf (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A quick response: no, this is not a test nomination. I came across it while looking for something else, and thought it didn't belong on Wikipedia. That's the only reason why I've nominated it. I hadn't even looked at other "Prisons in China" articles. As for "individual items in a list do not need to be notable" - that may be the case, but surely some of them need to have articles? I agree that the broader topic of Prisons in China would probably be notable, but I would have thought that the broader topic could either be mentioned (suitably sourced) in the Penal system in the People's Republic of China article - or an overall article Prisons in China (which currently links to the Penal system article) could be created. Again, this would need to be reliably sourced, etc. However, this list appears to do what a category would normally do... but which a category cannot do in this case, as none of the prisons have articles. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this just a test nomination? Because this is one of a series, in Category:Lists of prisons in China, and I see no reason to single out Ningxia. The split by region is simply for the sake of convenience and is a rather obvious way to subdivide it. You seem to be looking at this only as a navigational list, as we use to list articles grouped by a given topic, and so are fixated only on the question of whether each prison is notable. However, the broader topic of "prisons in China" is definitely notable even if not every individual prison merits an article. So if they are notable as a group, these lists may satisfy WP:LISTN ("Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable") or WP:LISTPURP#Information. Why is it not a reasonable part of covering the topic of prisons in China to list the prisons and some basic information about them? They are not so numerous as to make these lists trivial or indiscriminate. postdlf (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I should have made it clear in the nomination, but I did see if I could find alternative sources, but I couldn't find anything which appeared suitable for use as referencing here. Potential can be a valid reason to keep, but not when there is no indication of that potential! Of course, if someone else can do a better search and find significant coverage of the individual prisons, at reliable, independent sources which show that the individual prisons are notable enough to warrant an article (at the moment, an article of any of these prisons would only have the same content as the list content!), then that would be different - but to have none of the items in the list having an article? That's not the use of a list on Wikipedia. I gave the criteria for deletion above - it doesn't meet the notability criteria. The comment about NOTDIR said it was like a directory, not that it was a directory. Again, I repeat for clarity - this does not meet notability, which is a perfectly valid reason for deletion. Incidentally, there is a good venue for a comprehensive coverage of all things Chinese - at the Chinese-language Wikipedia. There are lots of valid subjects about China and matters Chinese on this Wikipedia - but not everything merits inclusion on this Wikipedia. I don't know what that Wikipedia's policy is on content, but this Wikipedia requires subjects to meet the notability criteria, with reliable independent sources giving significant coverage of the subject. This list does not meet that standard PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Prisons in China are notable as a group, so this satisfies WP:NOTESAL. James500 (talk) 12:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Nice project! The notes column make a very interesting read. The topic is notable and should be retained, even if it means some pages may have little or no notability of their own. Yaniv256 (talk) 01:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I don't read Chinese to delve into this more, but I think there is a presumption of notability given similarly titled/formatted articles elsewhere. List of United States state prisons contains List of Alabama state prisons, and Alabama has a population less than that of Ningxia. I agree with aforementioned reference to WP:NOTESAL, too. Location (talk) 01:05, 9 August 2012 (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.