Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries by number of prostitutes


 * 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 speedy keep. The nominator has withdrawn the nomination and per the consensus here. (non-admin closure) GSS (talk |c|em ) 09:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

List of countries by number of prostitutes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An archetypal example of poor self-made statistics we have bees struggling in Wikipedia in various places. Not only data is from different sources, it is from different years as well. If not "apples vs oranges", but definitely "tangerines vs. oranges". Staszek Lem (talk) 00:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * withdrawing, after the article was refocused. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't know where 'self-made statistics' comes from, that implies someone sat down and made them up. As the lead section states, reliable statistics are difficult to obtain. 133 of 159 figures are from UNAIDS 2016 Sex Workers: Size Estimates, ie from the same source. UNAIDS compiled this documents from various sources and presumably would have only included from sources that they thought to be reliable. UNAIDS statistics are generally accepted by academics as a reliable source. The renaming statistics were taken from as reliable sources as could be found. 'No data' has been entered for countries when the only statistics available were from tabloid type sensational articles. John B123 (talk) 01:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC) Edited to add 'Keep'. I did consider 'Speedy Keep' as per item 3 of WP:SKCRIT John B123 (talk) 11:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Self--made statistics comes from the persons who put together data from disparate sources. As for 133 from 159, I see 63 footnotes and 27 references, from years ranging between 2007 and 2016. You cannot put such data into a single ranking table. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There are 63 footnotes. If you take the time to look at the footnotes, you'll see some are used multiple times. One is used 33 times. As previously stated, the bulk of the statistics are taken from a single UNAIDS document. John B123 (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Which single document? The link is to a big website. Its presentation is in different form which does not attempt to compare the incomparable in a unified ranking. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The various graphs, tables and maps are loaded by ajax so there is no direct urls for any particular table. To see the relevant table, click on 'sex workers' on the left. An accordion will open and in that accordion click on 'Sex workers: Size estimate' and then along the top 'Data sheet' (and if anybody knows how to incorporate that in 'cite web' I'd be grateful) John B123 (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 05:53, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 05:53, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment, are WP:NOTSTAT relevant here? Coolabahapple (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * They are, of course. -The Gnome (talk) 23:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment It would be relevant, though WP has other informational statistical tables similar to this one from similar sources. SportingFlyer  talk  02:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment List of countries by number of prostitutes was split from Prostitution by country by consensus as part of a major revamp of the article. (That article was subsequently moved to Prostitution by region as part of the revamp). There are numerous List of countries by .... articles that use say the CIA Factbook. The CIA Factbook draws on multiple sources and uses the latest available information, although the 'latest information' may be from different years for different countries. I don't see that statistics compiled by UNAIDS are any less acceptable than those compiled by the CIA. John B123 (talk) 09:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete The lack of reliable data makes the list worthless. According to almost all serious analysis of the phenomenon of prostitution, the extent of illegal prostitution, even in countries where it is legal, is so significant that renders "official" stats worthless. Also, there is the issue of stirring through such a list needless and disruptive emotions, potentially spilling beyond Wikipedia. If we had reliable data, one could perhaps make a case for boldness, but not as things stand. -The Gnome (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "stirring through such a list needless and disruptive emotions." Using that criteria we should delete a lot of articles on WP: rape, murder, terrorism etc. The list of article the could cause "disruptive emotions" to people is virtually endless. John B123 (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Disruptive emotions caused by flaky data that we can and must avoid. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Example: One source cited in article gives 473,523 sex workers in Venezuela, while another one gives 120,000. Clearly 4x difference is something wrong. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * @John B123: I fully agree that "upsetting people" is not a criterion. But note that I qualified that remark with the point about lack of data. It's one thing to upset people with an article about, say, a gruesome crime, supported by reliable sources and hard data, and quite another to upset people with articles based on extremely unreliable factoids, like for example this sorry mess of an article. It's all based on flaky data; encyclopaedically unpardonable. A violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE at least. Sorry. -The Gnome (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep, with caveats. This is obviously valid as a split of material out of Prostitution by country.  AFD is not the place to argue about splits/mergers of material.  A re-merger proposal could be made at Talk:Prostitution by country instead, with notice given at the split-out article.  Other editors are right to be suspicious about the statistics given, but that is a matter to be addressed by appropriate introduction and perhaps negative tagging at the article.  An existing or new hatnote template, similar to Template:Expand list about incomplete lists, but instead mentioning difficulty of quantifying illegal activity, could/should be used at the top.
 * And IMO the lede should be very explicitly apologetic about the quality of statistics given, with [well-sourced, learned] explanation why, including that the number of unofficial sex workers is very difficult to know, and there should be explicit discussion [attributed to reliable sources] of difficulties of various approaches to estimation, such as the difficulty of census questions to ask about illegal activity, and the wide variance in "expert" opinions. Mentioning the specific example of 4x discrepancy between two versions of Venezeuela estimates would be very appropriate in the introduction.  All that said, it is still valid to present the material (and it is okay to be split out of the parent article), although perhaps multiple estimates should be given for Venezuela and other countries, each supported by their different sources.
 * Also, note the parent article should be identified in the lede. Perhaps mention in a hatnote template somehow [which I have tried at adding].  This would help dispell disbelief/reaction such as present in this AFD.
 * Also, renaming/moving the article could improve the situation. "List of countries by ..." suggests it is about the countries, yet the number of prostitutes is very spurious in the big picture, is not a major characteristic of countries.  Moving to a title more on-target, e.g. Statistics of prostitution by country would be provide more accurate emphasis of what the article is about.  It would also welcome other statistics that might fit in, besides the one statistic currently provided (a single relatively current estimate for each country).  For example it could allow for an extended discussion of historical statistics for one country as a case example of difficulty in measuring in this topic area. --Doncram (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * P.S. The current version of list-article needs a better lede.  It currently starts "Any figures for the number of prostitutes in a country is only ever an estimate", which [comes across as unprofessional, and does not inspire confidence.  For one thing it is very vague and not sourced.  Also the first sentence should state what the article is about, but this is very obviously] not a statement about what the article is.  That kind of preface/apology is needed, but needs to be properly stated with reference(s) (and perhaps by explicit quoting) an academic/reliable source about the difficulty here.  The current introduction is at fault for causing this AFD;  it comes across as a weak apology to be followed by slapdash stuff.  While in fact I believe that the stuff which follows is probably pretty well-considered, it does not come across that way.  This is a matter for editing, not for AFD. --Doncram (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC) --21:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * P.P.S. Specifically the article would come across better if it used one column for estimates from Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS 2016 Country Factsheets, and added another column for other estimates (which would each be footnoted as to their source).  The current version explicitly suggests it is a mishmash of estimates from various, incompatible sources, and fails to show which ones should be comparable (because they come from the hopefully-consistent UN source). --Doncram (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Update I have removed the refnotes that seem to be causing confusion and misunderstanding, and replaced with a plain ref John B123 (talk) 20:19, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but it remains that the single column of estimates includes a mishmash of sources. It is too burdensome upon reader to evaluate how many times one source is used vs another.  I still think having just one column for the one major source would improve readability. --Doncram (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * In fact, the change to use one generic reference, and losing specific links to specific sources (each separate country fact sheet, presumably) sort of decreases my confidence. Why not use one column devoted to the general UN source, and within that column provide specific references to the specific individual country fact sheets.  Cutting out specific references makes it unduly difficult for editors/readers to see what is the actual source of each datum. --Doncram (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've split the statistics into 2 columns as per your previous suggestions, which I think does improve the table. The UNAIDS source is a summary sheet taken from the individual Country Factsheets, but it could just as easily link to the individual factsheets. Originally I included all the information from the factsheets, year, source etc, which seemed to enhance the article, but from the comments left above, seemed just to confuse the situation hence the removal. John B123 (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, sincerely, for that, which is quite an improvement IMO. However the generic source, http://aidsinfo.unaids.org/ provides not a single one of the statistics in the column, AFAICT, even if you click on the "Sex workers" tab and the 'Sex workers: Size estimate' sub tab.  Using Chrome, I see no "top 'Data sheet' which was suggested above.  So I figure the individual country statistics must come from individual country fact sheets, accessible one way or another, quite likely prepared in different years (which is okay by me, but could you clarify about this, in this AFD discussion, about whether they are from different years?) which should be specifically sourced.   This has moved along substantially, IMO, but it is still arguable that the quality of sourcing renders the article quality inadequate for inclusion in Wikipedia (while I do vote "Keep" myself).  On the other hand, even offline dead-tree sources are acceptable for use, even if the specific fact sheets are not available online, so some kind of specific reference should be able to be created for each of the individual numbers.  --Doncram (talk) 22:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's odd. Also using Chrome I get options of 'Map', 'Data Sheet', 'Graphs', 'Compare', 'Factsheets' and 'Atlas' along the top. As you point out, it's probably less confusing to link to the individual factsheets. John B123 (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm, well, trying again, now I can get to that. I will try editing the reference in article to explain about how to get to the actual numbers under a "Data Sheet" tab.  Are there individual factsheets available somewhere.  For any country, can you provide a link? --Doncram (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The Country Factsheet for Angola. There is also an index of Country Factsheets John B123 (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * (ec) Okay, did that. It remains that the current article reference refers to multiple fact sheets as if there are separate country fact sheets, yet links to a single source which (with additional instructions) gets you to a single Data Sheet presumably put together by some U.N. person who deemed the numbers to be acceptably comparable. Note that for a different data item, "Number of people living with HIV", there are number columns for 2014, 2015, 2016, with point estimate plus confidence interval for each country. For "Sex workers" there currently is just one 2016 column, with just a point estimate for each column. Seems to me like there is one source, not multiple sources. Revising the presentation (the footnote and possibly the article lede) to allude to a single source (as opposed to suggesting this is a compilation by a Wikipedia editor from various sources) would improve credibility. --Doncram (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've changed the wording to refer to "Sex Workers: Size Estimates" rather than Country Factsheets. I agree the lead section could be improved John B123 (talk)


 * Keep While WP:NOTSTATS could apply, the article is indeed a valid split of another page, and there's now enough context (though it could use more) to justify the table of statistics. SportingFlyer  talk  03:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep There seems to be considerable enthusiasm for improving this article, and to delete it before these options have all been explored would be premature. There is of course some merit in the argument that the bald presentation of these statistics could be confusing to some readers. The suggestion to re-title the article as Prostitution statistics by country or similar could instead allow it to focus on the issue of the problems associated with prostitution statistics. We could find sources that discuss the difficulty of research in this area of social science, the paucity of figures available, and the partisan nature of some of the research. Such an approach would highlight those problems better than the current lead does. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree it was a good idea to reformat the article away from the pseudoranking form. Each entry in "other sources must be supplied with the year when the data was taken. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Years added in the 'other sources' column. John B123 (talk) 23:38, 13 March 2018 (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.