Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Laogai institutions and List of reeducation through labor institutions


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

List of Laogai institutions and List of reeducation through labor institutions
unreferenced, unverifiable, and unmaintainable lists (possibly hoaxes ➥the Epopt 18:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I can't quite follow you. These are certainly not "unreferenced"; both articles explicitly refer to sources from a "Laogai Research Foundation", apparently an NGO monitoring human-rights abuses in China. Do you have any particular reason to believe they are not reliable? - The existance of Laogai in China as such doesn't seem in doubt, or does it? Of course, collecting information of this kind in a country like China is bound to be fraught with problems, and some warning remark about the degree of reliability feasible in the circumstances might be appropriate - but "hoax" seems really far-fetched. Lukas (T. 22:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. According to the Laogai Handbook published by the Laogai Foundation, "Reeducation through labor" (ie. Laojiao) camps are the same as reform through labor (ie. Laogai) institutions. Read the Laojiao and Laogai articles, and you will find that they are not the same thing. I quote from Laogai: "It is often confused with, but completely different from, reeducation through labor, which is a system of administrative detentions." When sources such as these are used, one cannot help but wonder about the accuracy. The above lists used to contain such blatantly incorrect claims, which were unceremoniously removed when their accuracy was questioned. Such sources are definitely not reliable in my book. -- Миборовский U 23:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Abstrakt 03:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * KeepSarcelles 18:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this unsourced list. BlueShirts 03:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete both. I could swear I've seen these before on AFD. I don't particularly care whether they exist or not, but I'm going to assert that they are lists of interest to very few people and appear to have been created just for the sake of having such lists. In other words, they are listcruft. Stifle 12:48, 3 February 2006 (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.