Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family detention


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Family detention

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:NEO or WP is not a dictionary. For deletion or at least a redirect to a proper target, if there is one. This imparts no more than a dictionary definition - ie 'family detention is a situation where family members are detained together.' This does not discuss why the idea of family detention is notable. Being used in news sources is not establishing why the term warrants an article.

The court case (half the article) mentioned discusses a judge who held child migrants had to be released from detention centers -the holding itself has nothing to do with family detention centers.

Immigration is a hot topic, but there is no reason this article needs to exist. Again, it does not impart anything meaningful upon the reader, and at best uses synthesis to pull together sources which use the term. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ  20:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Update in response to votes: Does usage of a term mean it automatically deserve a WP article? I certainly think not. I'm not sure what significance we can show other than 'yes, families being detained together is called family detention.' I don't see what this can offer that articles on detentions and immigration issues generally don't already cover. This seems to have been created in haste in response to controversy around the separation of families at the border. I don't know why any reader would need to know what 'family detention' means when they can just figure it out using common sense. But that's just me. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  22:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at the Women's Refugee Commission report? I would think that seals the case for this being a real topic beyond a dicdef.--Pharos (talk) 02:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. TMGtalk 20:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. TMGtalk 20:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I believe El Cid is misrepresenting the article's contents. "imparts no more than a dictionary definition" Is not true. User:Pharos and I didn't rip off a dictionary, and I went on to discuss three terms (all from sources which discuss the recurring issue of "family detention") used for the places where it is done. I went on to discuss a recent court case where policies regarding FD were redefined. This is a stub and should be given some time to grow before immediately targetting it. I'll add some further content to this if it might stem ECEC's complaining, but "not..meaningful" and "no more than" is a blatent falsehood.
 * I don't understand how someone can say the holding of people has nothing to do with the centers in which they are held...
 * Please see special:diff/846607980 I have added some new content discussing the history of family detention. This is clearly more than just a dictionary definition. I think there is clear reason for the article to exist. ScratchMarshall (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. (edit conflict) The article is still a stub and has existed for all of 2 hours.  The intro actually says 'family detention refers to multiple family members being held together in an immigration detention context' - I fixed the dicdef issue before you posted this AfD.  The issue of detaining families together or separating them in an immigration detention context, or choosing not to detain, is an important one globally, not just confined to the US, and this article should explore the different approaches by country.  See for example Women's Refugee Commission report.--Pharos (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is a significant term; a quick search on Google Books or Google Scholar will pop up more than significant coverage. Neutralitytalk 21:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think that the rationale for deletion was more or less valid at the time (it was just a definition of the term) but the article has evolved past that quite a bit. It's definitely been fleshed out sufficiently at this point. Deville (Talk) 01:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep—This is broadly covered in reliable sources, and families are held in distinct facilities. The current article is tending towards a US-only view, but that can be corrected or the article name made more specific.--Carwil (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - legitimate article on a notable topic, more than a mere dictionary definition. The article may have been created in response to recent political controversy, but that doesn't mean it's not a viable subject.
 * Keep but most of the article needs to be re-written. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 05:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - AfD is not cleanup, and the sheer scale of the coverage surrounding this topic is proof of notability.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is in the news sources so valid WP:NEO and it passes WP:NOTNEWS as it's not all that recent. Nominator should read WP:RAPID. w umbolo   ^^^  10:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep: meets GNG per review of available sources; the article has been much improved since nomination. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep: meets GNG. Sources are good.BabbaQ (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.