Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human rights in Asia (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 no consensus. What a mess Spartaz Humbug! 22:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Human rights in Asia
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

General notability guideline:


 * "Significant coverage" of this article's intended scope is not referenced by the sources. The sources are region or country specific without discussing Asia as a whole (note that the Middle East is completely left out). Attempting to combine all of the sources is creating a subject that is typically not viewed at higher, continental focused, level. Basically, the article here is overreaching past the sources.
 * Original research is also a concern since the intended subject of the article is analysis or synthesis of not stated by the sources. All of the content does not establish notability of the subject as discussed at WP:CONTN.

}
 * Human Rights Watch is used for 16/48 sources, or roughly 60% of the text. The NGO is a source not "Independent of the subject" with its bias towards action and does not intend to pretend to be neutral. Please see their mission statement: "Human Rights Watch defends the rights of people worldwide. We scrupulously investigate abuses, expose the facts widely, and pressure those with power to respect rights and secure justice." About half the article reads as if it is someone's pet project to summarize their website's country profiles. The content and tone is more emotive than in an encyclopedic factual voice.

Readability:


 * The intended scope of this article is not manageable. Adding suitable information to the "Significant human rights violations" or adding the Middle East in the "History of human rights in Asia" would hamper readability as discussed at WP:LENGTH.

General clean up:


 * Besides the point of view concerns, the "See also" and "External links" sections are misused to inappropriately direct traffic instead of truly building Wikipedia. Note that the "See also" section contains links to articles already linked in the prose, while the "External links" section shows what could be better used as sources. I am not accusing any editors of having nefarious motives. This is important information but it needs to be presented within Wikipedia's standards.

Alternatives to deletion:


 * This article is not suitable for the main space in its current form, and it is doubtful it will ever be due to its potentially huge scope. I believe the best option would be to split the usable information off in to regional articles such as Human rights in the Middle East and Human rights in East Asia, or maybe the country specific articles like Human rights in China. This article might even be suitable as a list directing readers to the various pages. I suppose it could be relegated to user space or incubation, but there has not been substantial improvement since the first deletion discussion over a year ago. Orangejuicedude (talk) 08:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Orangejuicedude (talk) 08:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included at the WikiProject Human rights. Orangejuicedude (talk) 08:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)>


 * Keep. The topic is obviously notable. A quick search on Google Books turns up multiple books from reputable publishers literally titled "Human Rights in Asia".    I agree with nom that there are some major issues with the article, but most of these are fixable; nom should bear in mind that AfD is not cleanup. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk)

It is easy to assume notability, but we do not have an article Human rights in South America. Instead we have a category and Human rights in Colombia.
 * Human Rights in Asia: A Comparative Legal Study of Twelve Asian Jurisdictions, France and the USA.: Southest Asia, China, India
 * Human Rights in Asia: A Reassessment of the Asian Values Debate: China, Southeast Asia
 * Human Rights in Asia: This appears to be the same exact text as book 1.
 * Ways of Knowing About Human Rights in Asia: Focuses on Japanese occupation of lands in WWII.
 * Handbook of Human Rights in Asia: Primarily Southeast Asia, Sri Lanka
 * There is Human rights in East Asia or even a split to Human rights in Southeast Asia where most of these sources can be used. Asia is too broad. Add the problematic use of the current article and deletion + splitting + maybe incubation is the only viable answer here. Orangejuicedude (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete POVFORK of main articles of human rights related pages about countries. Written like an essay as well. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 17:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per above and per WP:NOPAGE. Badly written essay. Azuredivay (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Contentious issue that needs to be handled only on the main articles from where the content has been taken to unnecessarily create this article. Ashishkafle (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The sources are fine, but we have a different broader of "Asia" here.Orangejuicedude (talk) 05:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a legitimate topic because it was covered as a whole in a number of books, for example, Routledge Handbook of Human Rights in Asia, Human Rights in Asia, Emerging Regional Human Rights Systems in Asia, and so on, and so on . The content is mostly sourced and on the subject. Yes, it needs a lot of improvements, but this is not a reason for deletion. Something like Human rights in South America would also be a legitimate subject. My very best wishes (talk) 02:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, none of the sources covers every territory, and East Asia is usually the focus, but they intend to cover whole Asia. Besides, there is an organization, Asian Human Rights Commission that was mentioned in these books and publish something itself. My very best wishes (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - This article is far too broad for any meaningful analysis or examination. As it stands right now, this article could cover all of Asia, throughout all of history. The human rights of different regions of Asia, and different countries can be extremely different from one another. As it is now, the article mostly focuses on East Asia, with a little bit about Central and South Asia included as well (the Middle East is not mentioned at all). Nearly all of these analyses are not written in a very encyclopedic form, much more like an ESSAY, with a lack of meaningful sources for most. Khu'hamgaba Kitaptalk 19:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Too broad" is not a good argument. We do have pages on general subjects like Asia, and they are just fine. It should be improved? Yes, certainly. Not a reason for deletion. It is important there are many books on this broad subject as a whole (see examples above). My very best wishes (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

We have had over a year for improvement and none have been made. As mentioned, it would be fantastic if the article as userfied for someone to bring up o an appropriate standard. I believe it would languish due to the over broad scope and eventually be split while a list would be needed to point readers to the appropriate locations. The article is not suitable for the mainspace as is. There has got to be a point where it is broken down and retried a different way since allowing it to stay has proven to provide little value to the project as a whole. I would actually argue that allowing it to stay has resulted in a worse article since any attempts to remove MoS deficiencies result in instant reverts by editors who simply assume it is a worthwhile piece.


 * And the issue with notability of the topic as a whole. Why not Human Rights in the Eurasion Continent? Iraq is wildly different than Japan. Human rights in The Philippines is not relatable to Tajikistan any more than it is with Peru. Attempting to compartmentalize it by continent over region doesn't give the reader a better understanding of the general topic of human rights. Orangejuicedude (talk) 06:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, one should simply check books on the subject (like that one), and they explain why combining different countries in Asia was appropriate. This is not about territorial compartmentalization, but about common history or common problems with human rights in certain parts of the world. No, I do not see enough sources on Human rights in Eurasia because Europe is very different from Asia in terms of human rights. But about Asia, - yes, there are multiple sources. My very best wishes (talk) 23:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment to closing administrator. Please check contributions by user Orangejuicedude :::::Please, for the sake of discuasion, tell me why you think Tajikistan and Japan should share an article other than the notion of continental plates. What is binding between the two culture, language, or history wise besides a centuries old trade route and the incorrect definition of lamdmass? The sources don't try to so I won't bother.[User:Orangejuicedude|Orangejuicedude]] (talk) 05:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC) who started this AfD. With comments like that one, Orangejuicedude is certainly not a new user. My very best wishes (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I have a dozen FA and GAs under my belt, probably well more than you. COVID-cation has presented an opportunity to edit on Wikipedia. I chose to honor the whole "fresh start" thing by simply logging in and and attempting to make edits in topic spaces I was never previously involved in. So thanks, a lot of us are bored as fuck and trying to pass time during a pandemic--the last FA has to be at least 5 years old and was about sports, if I am not mistaken. I don't see how any of that is your concern or not an argument solely directed towards ignoring the reasoning I have presented to instead rely on a personal attack. You should actually feel bad and be admonished for steering the discussion towards the person making the argument instead of the context, nerd. "Winning" is not the goal of Wikipedia. I can say we were better than you when I was active.Orangejuicedude (talk) 04:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I've struck through Orangejuicedude's comments. Not only is this not a fresh start, he's shown that his indefinite block for harassment was justified at his talk page and by harassing another editor. Doug Weller talk 13:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. The subject is obviously notable and articles for deletion is not cleanup. Iamnotabunny (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Completely bizarre nomination, and of course the page is now a bloody mess. The "Delete" !votes alleging a fork are missing the point of child- and sub-categories of articles: I suspect an ethnopolitical POV. But the topic is the subject of massive amounts of coverage, in reliable journalism, the literature and scholarship. ——  Serial # 13:57, 26 May 2020 (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.