Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human trafficking in popular culture

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 no consensus‎. There is general agreement that the topic is notable, so the main issue is whether this article violates WP:NOT. I don't see a consensus here. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:10, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Human trafficking in popular culture[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)

As too often happens with "in popular culture" topics, this is just a list or works which feature the topic of human trafficing. This is a violation of WP:GNG, WP:NLIST, MOS:TRIVIA, WP:IPC, and WP:NOTTVTROPES, in descending order of policy importance (WP:V too, given lack of footnotes for most stuff here). It is not impossible this could be written, but it needs to start with proper literature review of works that discuss this topic, not with OR listing of some works that the author or authors noticed feature this theme. Per NOTTVTROPES and all other cited guidelines. And to quote a collegue: "I would have no objection to recreating this as a proper, encyclopaedic prose article about the topic—as was done for WP:Articles for deletion/Far future in fiction—in the event that sources that would allow us to do that while abiding by MOS:POPCULT emerge." In the meantime, we have Category:Works about human trafficking to catalogue notable works that depict this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Crime, Popular culture, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The topic may be notable, but this article is unacceptable in its current state, and would need a complete overhaul. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion is not cleanup. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TNT is not cleanup. And this is what is needed. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More than meets GNG, has been the topic of multiple independent reliable sources. Examples: [1][2][3][4][5][6]. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nikkimaria cites WP:NEXIST, but there is *already* an article on human trafficking. This is a discussion about a list specifically about its depiction in popular culture, which is unnecessary in its current state. I am sure it can be rewritten well in prose but this is simply an attempt to split off its bad parts and sweep it under the rug, as with most popular culture articles. Popular culture pages are not a dumping ground for unencyclopedic cruft. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources I provide are specifically on the topic of human trafficking in popular culture, which demonstrate that NLIST is also met. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am definitely not debating the underlying topic is notable. However, the entirety of the page needs to be rewritten. WP:DEL-REASON #14 includes "any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia" (in this case, WP:INDISCRIMINATE list). Non-notability is not the sole reason a page may be deleted at AfD and I am arguing it violates WP:NOT right now. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hesitant keep, as the parent article (human trafficking) is broad enough that a spinoff is warranted. I don't think it's appropriate to frame this as a list; the scope is too broad, and it is almost certain to turn into a list of popular works in which human trafficking is touched upon. An encyclopedic article discussion depictions of human trafficking would be a very good thing to have, and notability is met. If the article isn't knocked into shape I wouldn't oppose a redirect to the parent. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per other commenters. While the article needs a rewrite, I'd say it's definitely a notable topic and some sources seem to exist discussing it as well. I'd say the article deserves a chance to be patched up, and if it can't be, then I'm not against it going under the scrutiny of an AfD again. Pokelego999 (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pokelego999 As someone who has rewritten many similar articles (with User:TompaDompa doing even more similar work), it is my experience that nobody will touch this for a rewrite unless it is deleted. People are scared of deleting large swatches of... stuff... like what we have here. Now, we don't need a hard delete, I could create a stub on this based on the sources Nikkimaria provided, easily. But I am not going to waste my time adding a lead to what fails policies mentioned in the above, plus INDISCRMINATE Zx... mentions above. If there is consensus the current content can be removed (no objectionto it being hidden in history per SOFTDELETE, I can try to start something new, but I am not going to waste my time creating content that can never be DYKed or GAed or such because 95% of the article violates our policies (and creates the impression Wikipedia is the at the same level as TV Tropes). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, I wouldn't ask you to do something you don't want to do. In any case, if you feel it's beneficial, though, I'd definitely support keeping the history around somewhere in case someone wants to revive the article in the future. Not sure what feature would be best for that, though. Pokelego999 (talk) 02:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - While the actual topic is undeniably notable, this current list is clearly in violation of WP:NOT and should not remain in its current form. I am also open to any of the above suggestions for preserving the history in some form, whether by Redirecting it to the main Human trafficking article or by removing the example farm here and leaving it as a stub. Rorshacma (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete violates what Wikipedia is WP:NOT, as WP:DIRECTORY and WP:IINFO. Notability isn't the issue. In the event that someone is able to find enough sources to establish notability, there would be no encyclopedic content to WP:PRESERVE. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete point me to an “IN POPULAR CULTURE” article that doesn’t violate WP:NOTTVTROPES and WP:LISTCRUFT. Because it sure isn’t this one. Dronebogus (talk) 08:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably a rhetorical question, but... @Dronebogus: If "in fiction" is close enough, there's Mars in fiction (a WP:Featured article). If not, there's Loch Ness Monster in popular culture. It can be done, but it requires actually doing the legwork of locating sources doing the analysis and summarizing it in our own words. The essay WP:CARGO pointed this out fifteen years ago. TompaDompa (talk) 10:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I knew about the “in fiction” articles and didn’t think they counted. Dronebogus (talk) 11:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems to have stalled with an ambiguous consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dronebogus (talk) 12:36, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this seems like a clear case of deletion is not cleanup. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 23:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Delete things on the list that don't have their own Wikipedia articles, and separate the list between media based on true stories and media that is fictional. Dream Focus 16:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Category:Human trafficking in fiction exist, and a list is far more useful than a category since it allows information to be provided about each entry. Dream Focus 16:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:NLIST/WP:GNG, per the sources identified above. This mostly seems like a content dispute; all four subsections can be removed entirely, replaced with a short paragraph summarizing the chapters and papers identified by User:Nikkimaria. (If someone wants to spin off a proper list article, they're welcome to do so.) Suriname0 (talk) 00:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Suriname0 You are effectively saying this needs a TNT (a total rewrite), or am I misunderstanding you? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the page is essentially a stub already and I don't personally think WP:TNT is useful for stubs when a new article can be easily written. I consider the stub "Human trafficking has been the subject and inspiration for popular culture.[1][2][3][4][5][6]" to be a better outcome than a redirect, because it maintains article history, is easier to build from, etc. (WP:TNTTNT). Suriname0 (talk) 04:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Suriname0 I'd agree with that, but there is still the issue of the lists below, which while slightly trimmed still seem to violate MOS:TRIVIA and other policies I cited. I'd be happy to withdraw this if someone removes all that ORish/listcruft content. For now, I'd encourage you to copypaste the proposed sentence to the lead, preferably with the references found in this AfD. It will be a start at rescuing this mess, indeed. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't personally support major content removals during an open AFD; I think it often makes the discussion more confusing. Please ping me if the discussion closes as a Keep and I'm happy to remove the listed content. (I agree it violates TRIVIA as written, but that's clearly outside the scope of an AFD discussion imo as it's purely a content consideration.) Any other editor is welcome to spin that content off into a List of media related to human trafficking, although I would personally hate to create a list like that. Suriname0 (talk) 04:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I'd say the academic sources linked above about human trafficking in film justify including a section about in the article on human trafficking on depiction in film. I don't know that they justify a list of movies that include human trafficking. We're not talking about a list of movies by genre, say, but a list based just on an element of the plot. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets GNG, and no need to remove or rearrange adequate information and article structure except for red-link entries. There seem to be many more films that could be listed in the article per the category (surprised, for example, that Sound of Freedom isn't on the list). Randy Kryn (talk) 10:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Article is bad" is not a reason for deletion.★Trekker (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We're still about even when it comes to consensus. Relisting for another week to hopefully garner some discussion and a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 13:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It’s weak in its current form and it seems intractable as a topic. Human Trafficking has been a perennial fixture in narratives so an exhaustive list is impossible. Thus, inevitably it will be a list of notable examples which is just better suited to a section in the main article. WilsonP NYC (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If consensus is to delete/redirect or rewrite from scratch, I can try to at least stub it based on sources found, with the old page preserved in history (SOFTDELETE). But if the MOS:POPCULT list of trivia is kept, I don't feel like wasting my time adding a fig leaf to the TVTROPEish OR content below. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:08, 23 August 2023 (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.