Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of red-light districts (2nd nomination)

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. WP:SNOW keep. (non-admin closure) _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of red-light districts[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)

Wikipedia is not a directory, nor a travel guide. This is an indiscriminate list of places where prostitution allegedly happens, although very few of the sources refer to them as red-light districts per se. As a stand-alone list, this fails WP:LISTN, and most of the entries on this list violate original research and/or synthesis. – bradv🍁 15:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Compliant with WP:SALAT and WP:LISTN. ~~WP:NLIST is irrelevant as this is not a list of people.~~ All entries are either wikilinked to articles or referenced. Because the references do not specifically use the term "Red-light district" does not make this WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS — Preceding unsigned comment added by John B123 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant WP:LISTN, and have made the correction above. – bradv🍁 18:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@John B123: How exactly does using sources to put an entry in "list of red-light districts" where the place is not actually referred to as a red light district not a WP:SYNTH issue? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is it SYNTH? If in an article about a painting a references calls it a work, canvas, landscape or portrait but not a painting is that also SYNTH as the exact terminology is used? Of course not. The same principle applies here. --John B123 (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The legal status by region belongs or is duplicated at Prostitution by region, so merge that content there. As for the list: very few of the citations actually call the listed item a red-light district - some are simply crime articles talking about prostitution in that area. Delete, or trim the list to only include those with secondary sources that refer to the area as a red-light district such as the Amsterdam or Montreal examples. Alternatively, move to List of places where prostitution has occurred. –xeno^talk 18:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The assumption that the only reason for keeping a list of red-light districts is because one might want to visit them is extremely strange. There are all manner of sources on them across a range of disciplines (history, public health, sociology, just for a start) - and for good reason. It clearly needs improved sourcing and pruning (some of the ones in areas I'm familiar with are rubbish), and the legal status is largely a matter for other articles, but as ever, AfD is not cleanup. It could do with some more general improvement as well - many of these places need context (for example, St Kilda, Victoria and Hay Street, Kalgoorlie are red light districts in very different ways) and it sorely needs a "historic" section for the many notable districts that once were but are no longer. The suggestion of List of places where prostitution has occurred is one of the funniest suggestions I've ever seen on AfD, considering that you'd have to list most places on earth. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:SALAT and WP:LISTN. It's an odd one, but is guidelines-compliant. Hog Farm (talk) 00:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Red-light districts are culturally notable and extensively documented. Meets notability for lists. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The argument here for deletion seems floored. The list is well sourced it seems, the prose at the beginning of the article should be expanded on in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 12:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Govvy: Right now the article is a “List of places where prostitution has occurred” (which - as The Drover's Wife has intimated - is a rather absurd, probably limitless, inclusion criteria). –xeno^talk 12:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see why you think this list is absurd, Red-Light district has become more generic in it's use. I actually think the list could be shaved down a bit. The lack of prose, commentary, history as to why each location should be included in the list worries me a bit. This should be about locations where prostitution has hand a permanent home. Govvy (talk) 14:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Govvy: That...would not be the shorter list you think it is. Xeno: I think that's quite an exaggeration about the list as it stands (as John notes in his review below). It just needs a solid review for sourcing, and having more closely reviewed the ones for my area, I would add to my above comment that I think there probably needs to be a clearer definition of "red light district". (There's several that I would call questionably sourced to publications from regulators/lobby groups that give figures for alleged street-based sex work in areas that aren't necessarily known for it). The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having gone through the first two sections of the article, Africa & Asia (about 30% of the article), reference by reference, the majority use the term "red-light district" within the reference. Based on this, the nominator's "most of the entries on this list" seems an overstatement. Where the references did not specifically mention red-light district I have in most cases added additional references that do use that terminology. I will continue through the article, so the question of is calling an "area of prostitution" a "red-light district" WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS becomes irrelevant. Similarly the "List of places where prostitution has occurred" rather than "List of red-light districts" issue is resolved. --John B123 (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable topic; we can have a list of these. Is nominator aware of wp:CLNT? And per John B123, others. --Doncram (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Issue of clear focus upon officially-declared red light districts (common in U.S. history as matter of governments' zoning/planning for restricting adult-themed businesses) vs. broader definition to include any/all locations of prostitution, is a matter for editing and discussion at Talk page, not AFD. --Doncram (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:LISTN, numerous books that cover this as a group including: Red light districts of the world, Red light city, For business and pleasure : red-light districts and the regulation of vice in the United States, 1890-1933. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep list is discriminate/clearly meets WP:LISTN, and WP:NOTTRAVEL isn't violated at all as this isn't presented anything close to a travel guide would be. Cleanup can happen on the page d'talk SportingFlyer T·C 02:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. , but it seems to be essential to make a distinction between current and historical. The time span supported by the references must be given. (There are remarkable number of areas in NYC --and presumably in other cities as well--that could reasonably have listed here at one time or another in the past few centuries, and are very different today; there are probably some where the designation would more or less continually apply. This is one of the instances where some information in addition to the mere listing is necessary even in a list. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is really important and one of the first things that needs to happen in any cleanup. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Red light areas are culturally notable and can be informative in many ways, for example NGOs. However this article needs a collabortive effort to keep the information appropriate. The9Man | (talk) 06:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable topic. Discriminate, referenced list. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An important topic for the sex work task force. The sources demonstrate that it is WP:NOTABLE. It does not have the level of detail to violate WP:NOTTRAVEL. -- Polly Tunnel (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2020 (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.