Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human trafficking in Egypt

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. I'm withdrawing this; the referencing requirements really would be better discussed elsewhere DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Human trafficking in Egypt[edit]

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

Most of this articles is a POV essay, and that part that gives specific facts is not specifically referenced--and out of date. That's not surprising, since the article is simply a copy of the relevant section of a 2011 US government report, It's not copyvio, since it's PD, but its an inappropriate use of an external source--a source that was not written as a NPOV encyclopedia article. (It's a reasonable source to use in an article, especially to use for a quote for some of the conclusions).

Another course which I seriously considered, is replacing the entire text with a link to the article, except there seems to way to link to the relevant section.

Our template in such cases is inadequate and insufficient, as does not meet out current policy on plagiarism. .t says says only " This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain." without saying what part is copied from the source. Current practice is that portions copied from even as PD source must be indicated. (A template saying the entire thing is copied wouldn't do either, because the article is likely to have had changes adding other material.)

And even if this were indicated properly, it would still be necessary to remove most of the material as POV. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think this doesn't meet our standards regarding plagiarism? It indicates that each paragraph incorporates text from (and at this point, is essentially solely text from) the relevant report. I'm not sure what further disclosure you believe is appropriate. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between "incorporates text from" which implies there may be other sources, and " is entirely a copy of". After it has beeen further edited, how will anyone tell? They should be able to tell without going through the history & comparing against the original. We need a better way of handling this. DGG ( talk ) 19:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google search indicates Egypt is noted for human trafficking. Might need a rewrite but not a deletion. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic itself is notable. If this means that most or all of the article needs to be blanked or rewritten, so be it. TheBlueCanoe 02:18, 5 May 2014 (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.