Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Datong city re-education through labor

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 delete. Unsourced article and the consensus is that the necessary sources to meet WP:GNG have not been produced. Just Chilling (talk) 02:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Datong city re-education through labor[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)

Article may fail both WP:V and/or WP:NOTE. Article consists of only two sentences, of which most content was from an original edit in 2006. The re-education through labor program ended in 2013 yet is still presented here as if it is extant. There is little notability to this former prison aside from a 1980s New York Times article relating to what one can assume may be this prison, but may not be. The only source is a dead link to an Italian laogai-related website. For these reasons, I advocate for this article's deletion, since it has little to offer in terms of actual information at all, and has barely been changed, let alone updated since its creation in 2006 or the end of the re-education through labor program in 2013. Khu'hamgaba Kitap^talk 00:39, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 01:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are there any Chinese sources? Mccapra (talk) 02:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some searching in Google News and Books for articles mentioning "劳改" and "大同市" but drawn a blank for any meaningful results. I'd normally lean keep on something like this but in the absence of any real sources (other than possibly the book "Laogai Handbook 2007-8", which does appear to exist but which I don't have access to) it seems likely this will end up with delete. FOARP (talk) 08:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fail to assert notability based on general notability guideline. If the article only contain meta information about the facility, then it may be best to compile a list instead of a set of individual articles. Viztor (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possibly worth a mention in a list of Chinese prisons? Cheerio042 (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC) Striking blocked sock Britishfinance (talk) 10:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nomination, fails both WP:V / WP:NOTE. - MA Javadi (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2019 (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.