Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Australians in international prisons (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 keep. --bainer (talk) 03:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

List of Australians in international prisons (2nd nomination)
 See also Articles for deletion/List of Australians in international prisons - no consensus (2 years ago)

This is a strange one. This is a well-referenced list, yet is does not belong here. Its criteria are arbitrary and it is obviously being maintained for reasons of campaigning rather than being encyclopedic. It offends against WP:NOT and indescriminate collection of information and WP:NOT a soapbox. Consider the criteria for inclusion "the prisoner received a lengthy or harsh sentence in comparison to Australian law..." Why? Why should wikipedia care if laws in one jurisdiction are harsher than another? Do we want List of Saudi Nationals who got off light under US Law? Don't get me wrong, I support Amnesty International - just not on Wikipedia's time.--Docg 10:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Others might wish to consider whether the bios linked in this list meet WP:BIO or whether they are part of the same campaign?--Docg 10:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   —Longhair\talk 10:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. The individuals themselves may be notable and merit articles on their plights, but the criteria used for this list seems overly arbitrary and seems to use sources to advocate a specific point of view. (FWIW, I also strongly oppose capital punishment, yet agree that this list seems incongruent with our NPOV.) -- krimpet ⟲  10:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, this information could possibly be refactored and merged into Foreign relations of Australia as a more thorough, encyclopedic description of the underlying political issues, as this seems to be a very notable point in Australian foreign relations that surprisingly receives little coverage in that article. -- krimpet ⟲  11:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Unencyclopedic, unverifiable information. Twenty Years 11:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It looks well sourced. DPCU 11:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The individual cases are, but how do you source "the prisoner received a lengthy or harsh sentence in comparison to Australian law" - without falling foul of WP:NOR.--Docg 11:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep, but fix up - this list is a list of notable cases of Australians who were or are imprisoned or executed overseas, but I don't think the inclusion criteria is very helpful; although I'd reject suggestions that it's a front for Amnesty or something like that. The problem criterion is "received a lengthy or harsh sentence in comparison to Australian law" - there is quite a bit of objectivity to this given that sentences are comparable by reading the relevant legislation, but it could be judged as POV in some way. I think to delete this article would be to get rid of some well-referenced work and would be a complete waste - but the criteria desperately need changing. Instead of useless commentary like "unencyclopedic, unverifiable information" which doesn't add one thing to this discussion, why don't we suggest better ideas on what the criteria should be? Does anyone have any ideas? JRG 11:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that's why I think we need to delete. There's no criteria here which would not be subjective or lead to an unmaintainable list.--Docg 12:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's rubbish. The more likely reason I think is that you don't want to think about it. What's wrong with changing this page to something better? It's a complete waste to delete all the work that has been put into referencing the page. Come on... please help. JRG 22:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I genuinely believe that this page is unencyclopedic. It doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I believe I am helping by saying that.--Docg 22:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm sorry - point taken - but I still would like to see your reasoning why any alternative criteria wouldn't work. JRG 03:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment "Don't do drugs, mate!" Mandsford 12:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Categorize. Where exactly someone is imprisoned is a good thing to know - one expects Australians to be imprisoned in Australia, after all. But it's just too odd an article. --136.223.3.130 14:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * We already have Category:Australians imprisoned abroad--Docg 17:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete A category would be more appropriate, but I don't see an encyclopedic purpose here. Any individual who's notable enough can be the subject of an article, although I don't see the encyclopedic purpose of that either. I agree with the nom's reasoning.Noroton 15:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. This article could include anyone, notable or not was the first thing that came to my mind, so I agree with Noroton and his logic. Clear-cut delete for sure... Monsieurdl 19:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename. Rename to List of Australians imprisoned or executed overseas or something similar, which is a more accurate title.  The article has no red links, so presumably all of the members of the list are notable and thus the inclusion criterion is based on notability.  The list is superior to a cat because of the additional info.: the by-country breakdown, the dates, the charges, etc. and because lists help avoid Overcategorization. UnitedStatesian 21:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - criteria for inclusion not arbitrary. Each time a new case of an Australian being imprisoned comes up comparisons are made to other cases in the same or other jurisdictions.  List is referenced.--Golden Wattle  talk 22:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Golden Wattle. The deletion arguments are bunk. Rebecca 22:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's helpful. Please explain why?--Docg 22:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The deletion arguments were: This is a strange one. This is a well-referenced list, yet is does not belong here. Its criteria are arbitrary and it is obviously being maintained for reasons of campaigning rather than being encyclopedic. It offends against WP:NOT and indescriminate collection of information and WP:NOT a soapbox. Consider the criteria for inclusion "the prisoner received a lengthy or harsh sentence in comparison to Australian law..." Why? Why should wikipedia care if laws in one jurisdiction are harsher than another? Do we want List of Saudi Nationals who got off light under US Law? Don't get me wrong, I support Amnesty International - just not on Wikipedia's time.-- My arguments were that the criteria are not abitrary.  I didn't touch on the issue of campaigning but I think that is drawing a conclusion that is not warranted and argues about the editors rather than the content which is not in line with Wikipedia guidleines or policies.  Given the criteria are not arbitrary (you have to be Australian under some definition and you have to have been incarcerated and you have to have been notable enough to have citations supporting the event) then it is not merely an indiscriminate collection of information any more than any other list.  The differentiation between jurisdictions of sentences is actually a matter of passionate interest to Australians, regularly making front page news.  In our current election campaign, the leader of the opposition made a remark which by some was considered misjudged and at the very least was debated concerning sentencing in Indonesia - see for example this news story Rudd in fast turn on death penalty published in The Australian on 10 October.  Wikipedia is not meant to care about anything, caring is not a criteria for inclusion - what matters is whether it is encyclopaedic.  To answer in passing one of the other arguments advanced above, a category has frequently been ruled to not be a substitute for a list - it isn't sufficient in this case in my view either - a list aggregates the information in such a way that a category does not manage to present.--Golden Wattle  talk 01:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to follow up the criteria for inclusion are: noteworthy for the following reasons, (1)the prisoner was arrested and charged and / or convicted of notable crimes whilst abroad. or (2) the prisoner is an otherwise notable person in Australia. The criteria does not include: the prisoner received a lengthy or harsh sentence in comparison to Australian law as per the deletion argument which thus misrepresents the list. --Golden Wattle talk 01:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If this is a dispassionate list, it should include all Australians in foreign jails, even British or American ones. What justification for limiting to those one someone feels are harsh - that's the root of the POV.--Docg 01:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly - my bad - the criterion for inclusion on harsheness has just been removed - it didn't used to be there some time ago.  I don't think it is a useful criterion and I don't think the list needs to be modified as a result of the criterion having been removed.  Inclusion in the list is governed by notability - there have to be references to support the notability.  If you end up in jail for some minor misdemeanour and you are not notable and your misdemeanour or the senetence you received is not noteworty, there will be no sources and you will not meet the criteria for inclusion.  If I am arrested for jay-walking in New Zeland, I won't make it on the list.--Golden Wattle  talk 01:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep.  Fully verifiable and well referenced.  I do not believe that the article is being maintained for campaigning: As Golden Wattle said, this is of immense interest to Australians.  Inclusion criteria is fine.  &mdash;Moondyne 01:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep There are no arbitary criteria for inclusion on this list beyond the arbitary nature of WP:N: there has to be a published source to back up inclusion. This should have been fixed by clean-up and consulting frequent or past editors not by bringing the article to AfD.Garrie 02:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Question for those who want to keep: What is the encyclopedic purpose of this list? Golden Wattle has said that it's of interest to Australians, and I can easily believe that, but there are all sorts of things that are of interest that are not encyclopedic. My mind is open: Make a good case that an encyclopedic purpose would somehow be served by this list and I'll change my mind. I think others might, too, because it seems to me the list looks good otherwise.Noroton 05:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This list is a good launching point for understanding Australian foreign relations policy and procedure wrt citizens that have been accused of committing a crime overseas; stated another way: if the reader reads the entries on this list, they will have a better understanding on how the Australian government and people react to these situations. The list doesnt bother mentioning every Aussie who ends up in an overseas jail because most times the Australian public and government agree 100% with the foreign governments actions.  This list contains entries for the times where the overseas detention is contentious. John Vandenberg 05:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * See Categories, lists, and series boxes. This clearly explains why a category is not a substitute for a list.  The disadvantages of lists are not outweighed by the advantages.  Most of the 12 advantages apply to this list, in particular advantages numbered 1 through to 5 and 11.  As per Lists a list may be a valuable information source - this one in my view is a valuable information source.  When the next foolish (or perhaps unlucky) Australian is incarcerated overseas, this list will give instant information on the fate of similar cases whether by country (the main sort criterion) or by alleged crime.  The list supports research on the topic and navigates to articles which give more details.  This list does not inn my view breach WP:NOT.--Golden Wattle  talk 21:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The failed nomination for featured list gives some clues as to why this list is encyclopaedic. The list was stated to be  great list which AFAIK doesn't exist anywhere else in published form.  Issues such as it is not comprehensive - the list itself says "This is an incomplete list...", and there are no entries before 1969 and few before the late 1990s mean that it is highly unlikely to be  a featured list, that doesn't mean that it is unencyclopaedic.--Golden Wattle  talk 22:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The list seems to be made up of mostly trivial subjects that I don't think deserve Wikipedia articles. Drug dealers convicted abroad of smuggling a couple of kilos of drugs? I saw nothing in those articles that looked encyclopedic, and therefore the list doesn't look encyclopedic. It looks like a nicely organized bunch of trivia.Noroton 01:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * They are notable in Australia. Schapelle Corby and the bali Nine for example are still major news stories years after their arrests. 8 google news hits for Schapelle as of the time of writing in major news providers and 186 hits today for Bali Nine. Schapelle Corby was imprisoned in 2004 and the Bali Nine in April 2005.  Their ongoing newsworthiness surely meets notability criteria even if they should be infamous rather than famous.  Your comments indicate that only worthy people should be considered notable.--Golden Wattle  talk 00:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per notability factors--Zingostar 16:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep -- a unique, verifiable and regularly maintained list. It's unique content like this list that makes Wikipedia the interesting place it is. - Longhair\talk 21:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as a notable list, and as useful to legal scholars such as myself, and my students studying criminal law. Bearian 22:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Some of the objections are valid, but the answer in this case should be to fix the list, not throw it out entirely. Baby, bathwater, you know the rest. Orpheus 12:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The list provides useful context, and allows people to compare and contrast noteworthy cases. If a well-maintained and NPOV List of Saudi Nationals who got off light under US Law was created, I'd be in favour of that as well. I'm not speaking as a bleeding heart - I loathe Amnesty International as it currently is. Andjam 17:34, 11 November 2007 (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.