Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human trafficking in Albania


 * 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. The "delete" !voters miss the point: WP:NOTMIRROR is intended to prevent indiscriminate copy-paste additions of public-domain material. However, in this case the content is perfectly encyclopedic. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Human trafficking in Albania

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article is unencyclopedic and has been copied and pasted directly from http://www.state.gov/g/tip/rls/tiprpt/2010/142759.htm. —  Kedadi  talk  23:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions.  —  Kedadi  talk  19:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment There's no copyvio here: works of the United States Government are in the public domain. Peter Karlsen (talk) 23:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I know, this isn't a copyvio issue. Cheers. —  Kedadi  talk  23:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Then the relevant questions are: is the topic notable, and, if so, does the existing text provide any useful basis upon which to develop an npov article? Based on, it seems that the subject is covered by multiple reliable sources, and is therefore notable. Whether the current text is at all useful depends on the extent to which one trusts the State Department. Since I consider the source to generally be reliable, at least on topics such as this, Keep. Peter Karlsen (talk) 23:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. Cheers. —  Kedadi  talk  23:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep (as author/paster), per Peter Karlsen and Articles for deletion/Human trafficking in Serbia. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, since this doesn't look like a snowball keep like last time I'll expand my reasoning. One of Wikipedia's strengths is collecting useful public domain material that can form the basis of encyclopedia articles. We have done this with the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica and many other works. The entire History of Cambodia series is copy-pasted from a Library of Congress source, as are many other articles, like Social class in Iran and Precolonial Mauritania. 1843 Constitution of Haiti was pasted from a public domain book. WP:WP DNB is an entire wikiproject devoted to including the contents of the Dictionary of National Biography (United Kingdom), and there is interest in expanding it to similar works for other countries. (I, for one, have been translating articles from a Chilean national biography, resulting in articles like Ángel Custodio Quintana. Charles Stanley Blair is one of hundreds of biographies of federal judges copied and pasted from a government source. Copy-paste in itself is not bad, as is shown by these many examples. The only question, then, is whether this is a useful start for a factual article. In my mind, there is no question that the answer is yes. No one has shown any evidence that this State Department publication is unreliable. Wikipedia is better off having this information than not having it. This is a matter for cleanup, not deletion. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice per WP:NOTMIRROR. Although we can copy and paste vast amounts of text, that does not mean that we should copy and paste vast amounts of text. Location (talk) 03:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you're thinking of WP:NOTMIRROR, which says, "Mere collections of public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, unmodified wording. Complete copies of primary sources may go into Wikisource, but not on Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with using public domain resources such as 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica to add content to an article. See also Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources and Wikisource's inclusion policy." This is not source material that is useful only when presented with unmodified wording. On the contrary, it is the latter - using public domain resources to add content to an article (which is specifically sanctioned). Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link correction. "Using public domain resources to add content to an article" and copying a vast amount of text from a public domain resource to create an article are two different things. As is, the article simply mirrors what appears elsewhere. Location (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * But wikipedia has long copied vast amounts of public domain resources, like EB1911 and the LOC country studies. Would you object to the creation of the articles listed above, then, solely on the basis of their having come from elsewhere? That is, would you delete Precolonial Mauritania and Social class in Iran? If not, how is this article different? Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To be clear, it appears as though both of those article were "created" by you in the same manner of copy and paste. As they are mirrors, I would also recommend "delete without prejudice" for them. Location (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, those two were created by me. It's easier for me to think of examples I have made myself, obviously. But many more such articles were created by others. See the whole History of Cambodia series, and 3500 pasted federal judge articles (e.g. Charles Stanley Blair), 2800 articles from the DNB (e.g. Robert Adrain), Morgan Dix, 8800 articles incorporating content from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships (e.g. USS Ammonoosuc (1864)), and surely thousands and thousands more. Should we trash those articles too? Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Although I will admit to spending far too much time on Wikipedia, I will also add that I still have far too little time to examine the entire series about the history of Cambodia or every article in three categories that "incorporate text" from public domain resources. "Incorporating text" in an article and copying a vast amount of text from a public domain resource to create an article are two different things. Location (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * All of the judge articles were created by a robot, so they're definitely not just "incorporating text". I don't know about the ship articles that thoroughly, but there are many that were merely copy-pasted to start - see, e.g. this first revision, which is exactly this article. There is a whole wikiproject devoted to copy-pasting the DNB (WP:WP DNB). Wikipedians were really excited when it looked like the New Georgia Encyclopedia might freely license their articles so we could paste them all across. The trial effort started here; village pump discussion here. Hundreds and hundreds of articles have been straight-up pasted from the Encyclopedia Britannica. I can vouch for the history of cambodia series being a straight copy-paste. My point is, this is a totally accepted practice, and deleting this one article on the basis of its being a copy-paste goes against long-standing consensus about the appropriateness of using pasted sources as starting points for articles. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether or not I am aligned with current consensus, taking a long, multi-paragraph article from a public domain resource and moving it to Wikipedia via copy and paste is different than using public domain content to start an article. We can compare the differences and similarities to Morgan Dix all day long, but Human trafficking in Albania is clearly a mirror. Location (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Aren't they exactly the same thing? First you paste it, then you start the article. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and Location. --  S ulmues (talk) 05:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, agree comments above--Vinie007 08:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. It seems these can be expanded into proper articles - plenty of material via Google that could be used. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 19:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - the whole copy-paste thing is a big red herring. The topic of this article is "human trafficking in Albania".  The public domain material that was copied is an article specifically about human trafficking by country with Wikipedia incorporating the text for Albania into this article.  This is a perfectly acceptable means of starting an encyclopedia article on this subject.  The only question remaining is whether this is a notable topic.  The New York Times would seem to think so. -- Whpq (talk) 16:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The rationale for this nomination does not reveal an appropriate reason for deletion. If the issue is that freely licensed material was taken from elsewhere an used here, well that is exactly what should happen. NOTMIRROR is designed to prevent the indiscriminate addition of primary source material, which is why there is another project (Wikisource) specificially for such additions. It is not intended to prevent the addition of freely licensed material on notable topics for which we formerly lacked, as here. This material is now cateogorized and linked to other articles of human trafficking, and adds to our coverage on this topic. If the article's language is unencyclopedic, or if its neutrality may be question that is a matter for editing, not deletion. I have yet to see, at any point in this discussion, an articulation of how the encyclopedia is improved by deletion of this verifiable and reliably-sourced material. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  15:11, 21 September 2010 (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.