Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of re-education through labor camps in China


 * 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. Keeping. These still exist, the article can be improved (over TNT) and it just needs attention. Please consider improving before anything else. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

List of re-education through labor camps in China

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has many of the same problems from the already deleted page "Datong city re-education through labor". The topic itself likely meets WP:NOTE as a whole, but has serious WP:NPOV issues without WP:V to back up claims (e.g. "Has some former drug users acting as staff" without citation as a note for one facility in Yunnan province). Many of the facilities on their own likely do not meet WP:NOTE.

The article's sources are all from before 2013, which is when the Re-education through labor program was ended in China - this article makes no mention of the change. The references themselves could be improved as well if edits are to be made to this article.

This is certainly a sensitive topic, and some of the facilities (those with their own, individual sources) could make for good articles on their own (e.g. Trisam RTL), but serve little use here coupled with hundreds of others here without citation or notability.

If proper sources could be found, the easiest thing to do may be just to delete this article in its entirety and create a new, more proper and verifiable one instead. (WP:TNT)

As was pointed out by Zanhe, a good solution/alternative to the article's deletion may be to Merge and Redirect to Re-education through labor, listing the properly sourced facilities there. Khu'hamgaba Kitaptalk 23:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Khu'hamgaba Kitaptalk 23:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep  I don't think this is bad enough to deserve TNT. Ideally someone would work on cleaning it up and develop a clear inclusion criteria. We have comprehensive lists of subcamps of Nazi concentration camps (such as List of subcamps of Flossenbürg) despite the fact that many are not notable. buidhe 03:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * KEEP They did not close them down in 2013. The BBC has video footage of one they used to imprison Muslims and "re-educate" them to be proper Chinese. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/China_hidden_camps That's not the documentary I saw of theirs, that somewhere else.  Anyway Xinjiang re-education camps show more about that.  Need to fix the article, not delete it.   D r e a m Focus  05:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.  D r e a m Focus  05:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Re-education through labor. The few sourced entries can be merged into the main article, but most of the list is unsourced and unverifiable. The Xinjiang camps are a different topic, not part of the RTL system. -Zanhe (talk) 06:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Really? They don't all do mindless brainwashing exercises, teach people why they must be a certain way, and forced manual labor in one form or another?   D r e a m Focus  12:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Dream Focus, I understand the point you are trying to make here, but there is a difference between Re-education through labor and the Xinjiang re-education camps. Yes, both have to do with the penal system of China, but the re-education through labor program and the Xinjiang re-education camps are not the same. As can be seen in their respective articles, the re-education through labor program dealt with petty crimes on a national scale (until it was outlawed in 2013), whereas the Xinjiang re-education camps are officially stated to be for counter-terrorism efforts in Xinjiang province (which began in 2017) . If you do feel so strongly that the topics are the same, this is not the place to try and remove the distinction. (Wikipedia has separate articles on the two subjects for a reason...) Khu'hamgaba Kitaptalk 19:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Masanjia_re-education_through_labor_camp says they previously did it to eliminate the Falun Gong religion which had tens of millions of followers. And now at Xinjiang re-education camps they have done it with 1 to 3 million Muslims.  I recall them doing this to the Buddhist monks in Tibet, enslaving their monks to be tortured and used for slave labor.  They held people for minor crimes, without trial, and used it to eliminate religions, doing this then and now.  So it is the same thing.   D r e a m Focus  19:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, really, just as Immigration detention in the United States and Internment of Japanese Americans are two different topics, even though they share many common attributes. They target different populations and exist(ed) in different periods. -Zanhe (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is an informative, important and perfectly valid list. Of course there are sources on this subject. My very best wishes (talk) 02:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep the contention that the re-education though labor program ended in 2013 is simply not factual, WP:RS have repeatedly found that statement to be as much of a lie as the promise that all the Xinjiang camp prisoners have been freed. I agree with buidhe that we should keep this consistent with the pages on forced labor and political re-education camps in other brutal regimes. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. I immediately see a lot of formatting issue with the citations, but noting that bad, as noted above. No reasonable person could assert, with the the significant coverage this issue has gotten, that it's not notable.  The major issue is whether it's a fork, or irrelevant as a list. That's a call on whether you like lists or prefer categories. I'm in favor of both, particularly when it would help our core readership, students. The remaining issues are not addressable at AfD, and a better forum would be the talk page or to temporarily block vandals. Bearian (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2020 (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.