Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human trafficking in Angeles City


 * 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. No original research is a core Wikipedia content policy, and synthesis is original research. An article that cites sources that don't support the statements they are claimed to support is worse than bad -- it's deceptive. Nandesuka (talk) 03:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Human trafficking in Angeles City

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Lots of original research, a probable POV fork, undue weight, mess of a thing. The sources don't really describe any detailed problem with human trafficking in this city and it appears to only exist because of undue weight concerns in the main article. A good example of sourcing that doesn't source the article subject. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 17:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment What is the "main article"? / edg ☺ ☭ 17:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Angeles City Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 17:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you suggest this information (where sourced and so forth) be merged to that article? / edg ☺ ☭ 17:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced its even worthy of that. what large city doesn't have prostitutes? Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 17:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That argument has been made before here. Since the early days of Clark Air Base, Angeles City has become known as a center for prostitution. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes and it appears this article is an attempt to circumvent the concept that it wasnt worth including in the main article. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 18:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "Wasn't worth including" is one perspective. Someone else might call it tendentious editing by editors WP:OWNing that article. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The sourcing is so poor in this article that it appears that the nameless ones you're talking about were right. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 19:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete.
 * The first sentence alone has three sources, the first of which references prostitution in 1989, the second of which mentions Angeles once, amongst a list of twenty two cities an organisation is going to concentrate on , and the third saying that a man arrested for sleeping with minors owns a club there . Whilst these suggest that there is an issue of prostitution in the Phillipines, they (a) don't actually state that Angeles specifically has a 'significant' issue with it and (b) I'm not convinced that the fact that a city has prostitution is really worthy of a seperate article - as 'Weighted Companion' notes, what city doesn't?
 * After reading most of the sources, I think it might be worthy of an article of human trafficking in the Philippines, but I don't see the justification for having one specifically for Angeles, as a lot of the sources mention Angeles briefly and usually talk about the wider issue of trafficking in the Phillipines. -- Naerii  ·  plz create stuff  17:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you're understating the significance of the 3rd link."Agnew, who lives the life of a millionaire, moved to the Philippines seven years ago from Northern Ireland where he served as a sergeant with the RUC. And he soon opened up a string of go-go clubs in Angeles City. ... Next week Agnew will learn whether or not he will face a more serious charge of trafficking in females."And the article has 100 more references. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * My point is that none of the sources back up the statements made - this is a case of WP:SYNTH. As I stated, I have reviewed the rest of the sources and imo in the majority of cases they don't actually say what the article says. The use of the first three sources was just to make my point. -- Naerii  ·  plz create stuff  19:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak delete The nature of the article, with the long quotions in the references, makes it clear that this is a POV essay in guise of a WP article. The references are individual articles about individual events, amounts to the use of OR. Not saying a suitable article cant be written, but this is not it. Better to start over. DGG (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep, but tag with WP:NPOV. Redmarkviolinist Drop me a line 18:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep, The article is extensively well sourced, one must review all the sources and look at those sources as a whole, rather then picking one or two. When for example, one looks at the documentary http://www.hopeinheavenfilm.com/index.htm it may be asked how many cities in the world have documantaries made about the human trafficking problem...very few indeed. How many vities in the world have thousands of children as young as 10 years old forced to service up to 20 customers a night...not many. This is a stand alone article, it is a very valuable addition to wikipedia, and an article that is offers a good reference point for those researching the suject of human trafficking in Angeles. It may be there are some issues with the presentation of the article, but its only a matter of some experienced editors being involved.Susanbryce (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really, I see documentaries about prostitution in my home city of Sheffield on TV all the time. -- Naerii  ·  plz create stuff  19:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. While there are some sources talking about Angeles City in particular, most of the sources discuss the Philippines generally (for instance, citation #27, Amnesty International). The current article fails WP:SYN badly. It may be salvageable if rewritten extensively to deal with Human trafficking in the Philippines. I have no idea why the author felt this particular city was important enough amidst the wider problems to merit its own article, but there certainly do not seem to be sufficient sources dealing with Angeles City in particular to support some of the claims. That, using the same example, Amnesty International has pointed to abuse of prostitutes by police in the Philippines should not be used to support a claim that police in Angeles City did so, unless cited much more carefully than the current article does. --Dhartung | Talk 19:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is little more than a POV fork. The sources do not reflect the specificity of the article therefore, per Dhartung, it would better if the material was about the Philippines as a whole. As it is, this merits little more than a line or two in the article about the city. Rockpock  e  t  20:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into Human trafficking in the Philippines and clean-up - significant amount of reliably sourced content. Addhoc (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * strong delete POV article of a clinically paranoid and raving nature.  The special, the random,  the lovely Merkinsmum  20:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - POV fork as far as I can see, and as brought up, many of the sources don't back up the central assertion. Really, what city doesn't have prostitution and human trafficking issues? If the city is really that notable for it, mention it in the main article. But this is unnecessary.  Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 20:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep as we should not be deleting good quality material, which this is. We give endless coverage of the first world but when we get some good third world coverage people want to get rid of it. Which totally baffles me. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * i see little in this that qualifies as good quality material of any world, first or third. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 21:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to a well-sourced article (one candidate is mentioned above) about human-trafficking issues in this region in a broader context. The emphasis on one particular city appears to be disproportionate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per those pointing out this is a POV fork, pointing out that this is synthesis, and pointing out that it seems to be the focus of ownership by one editor with an agenda to push. I could perhaps see an smerge of a sentence or two to a broader scope article, per NYBrad... ++Lar: t/c 22:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep or strong transwiki to Wikiversity. --Emesee (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per reasons stated above. —  Κ aiba  00:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, Stubbify, and Completely Rewrite -- The article in current form is very much a diamond in the rough. There are a number of good sources, but the content is a quagmire of  purple prose ,  yellow journalism , and other colorful text.  --SSBohio 01:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nominator's rationale does not justify deletion. He said: "Lots of original research, a probable POV fork, undue weight, mess of a thing". "POV fork" to what? The entire article is not OR and includes a number of supporting sources. Any content problems (undue weight etc.) should be simply fixed. No reasons for deletion.Biophys (talk) 02:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you read the sources? Barely any of them support the claims in the article. -- Naerii  ·  plz create stuff  12:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Dhartung, you mentioned:"I have no idea why the author felt this particular city was important enough amidst the wider problems to merit its own article, but there certainly do not seem to be sufficient sources dealing with Angeles City in particular to support some of the claims."FYI, the author of this article has previously admitted to growing up in Angeles City --HurryTaken (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Whatever content that is not OR in this article can be added to Human trafficking in the Philippines and this article can then be deleted. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I would echo some of the comments made by the editors that have posted a delete. I have followed this article since its inception and believe that it has always had some severe WP:NPOV problems. The edit wars and debates on this article have always been pretty intense. I would also like to point out the original author of the article posted the user talk notice they received about the AfD to the following user's talk pages. User_talk:Gscshoyru, User_talk:Addhoc, and User_talk:SqueakBox. The guidelines on WP:CANVAS seem quite loose. So I simply provide this as additional information for all to consider. I would characterize this article as WP:TEND using WP:SYN by an editor that seems to clearly have an agenda. I also strongly agree with the comments from User:Merkinsmum, User:Dhartung, User:DGG and User:Lar
 * While this was posted top my talk page I dont believe the poster knew which way I would vote, and besides I cannot take the blame for that. once I had been informed I analysed the situation (as one does with any afd on an unfamiliar article) and made my decision, so whatever my comment is as valid as anyone else's. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It was not my goal to suggest that anyone did anything wrong or that anyone's comments should be discounted or invalid. I tried to word the above information about the User Talk page posts are neutrally as possible and as an FYI given the notice at the top of this page that states: "This is not a majority vote. If someone brought this page to your attention, or you brought this page to others' attention, please make a note of this fact here."--HurryTaken (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not think posting 4 notices on talk pages is at all excessive, unusual, or appropriate for a comment. That notice at the top was not appropriate if that's all the "canvassing". DGG (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The !vote template is not hurting anything. For what it's worth, this AFD has also been listed in Tambayan Philippines. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think a merge or redirect to Human trafficking in the Philippines would suffice. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 23:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ThankYou Lenticel, your input here is much appreciated. I should offer an explanation here as to why I started a seperate aeticle human trafficking in Angeles to human trafficking in the Philippines as for those people who are outside of the Philippines it is hard to understand. Although most places in the Philippines suffer from problems of human trafficking, we can say that human traiicking within these places is there, but it does not control the city.

In Angeles it is a completely different situation, the whole city was built around the human trafficking trade after the closure of the base. Organized crime shifted from Manila to Angeles and took control of the city. They control everything through restaurents, hotels, police, polititions, elections, etc. As such, the article has been kept seperate from the human trafficking in philppines article, so as not to give the reader or researcher the wrong opinion. Human trafficking in Angeles is vastly different from the rest of the Philippines, and if we merge the article it is going to give the reader and researcher a totally different and false view on the facts. Wikipedia as an encyclopedia needs to present this information in the best possible and factual way. This is why I think the merger is probably the wrong way to go here. Kind RegardsSusanbryce (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It should also now be noted that a number of quality experienced Editors have engaged themsleves on the article and did some quality work on improving the article, so I think some of the original concerns are now been resolved. Ive always stated from day one I have no education, english is my second language and as such ive struggled in my articles on wikipedia. But that should not be a reason to delete an article, and with the invovlement of quality editors now in the article, as Ive said, I think the original concerns are being addressed. Kind RegardsSusanbryce (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * but the improvements aren't doing it. there are still bunches of paragraphs that have nothing to do with angeles city, and i'd remove them if i thought it would be fair during the deletion discussion.  Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 14:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I put a bunch of work into it awhile back.... The article was and still is a mess. OR, POV issues... basically this is not an article. It is a collection of "facts" many of which are not supported by the sources. There could be an article on this subject. This is not that article. Devalover (talk) 18:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and continue cleanup, which has been very active during the past week (see article history page). Comment on suggestions to merge: Human trafficking in the Philippines and Angeles City are both far too large for merging to be considered an improvement.  — Athaenara  ✉  01:00, 13 March 2008 (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.