Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Texas Multi-Use Facility

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. A discussion about merging can happen at another AfD Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

East Texas Multi-Use Facility

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Found this one in CAT:NN cleanup of geographical places. It's a private prison, so the relevant SNG would be WP:NORG. Most of the coverage of it is either very shallow (ei prison databases) or is government reports published by the Texas state agencies that help oversee the prison. I don't think this meets NORG or WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A prison with 2,200 inmates. Clearly notable, plenty of sources here... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitalis196 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ [Changed per discussion below] Redirect to List of Texas state prisons- the place exists, but there's no evidence of notability. Sources I looked at, including those offered by Vitalis196, are merely listings or incidental mentions, so fails WP:GROUP and WP:GNG for not having "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". It's worth repeating: "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." SilkTork (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SilkTork (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's listed in a couple of Prison directories [1][2], and also a fair amount of media coverage [3][4][5] [6]. Much of the coverage is local but that does not mean that it isn't significant or reliable. Added to which it's a large prison home to 2,200 people. I'm pretty convinced that it's notable. Vitalis196 (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to confuse existence with notability, especially when something is mentioned in several places. We have essays on this, such as WP:ENN and WP:EXIST which seek to explain the difference between existence and notability. Sometimes it's not easy to make a judgement on what is notable, which is why we have this discussion board. However, our inclusion criteria requires that a subject is not merely listed or mentioned, but that at least one person (preferably more) has written directly about the subject in reasonable depth in a reliable source in a manner to indicate they have selected that subject because it seemed interesting or notable rather than commonplace or Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. We don't set out to list everything that exists or is mentioned, just those things that are regarded by reliable sources as notable. If you can find at least one source which talks directly about the prison (not about Covid-19 in prisons, nor about students visiting prisons, but a source where the prison itself is the main topic) that would help establish notability. I did a search myself using the "find sources" links above and found only passing mentions in newspapers, such as yourself, nothing substantial and nothing in books. SilkTork (talk) 04:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The presumption is that major government and analogous facilities are significant, even if they keep a low profile. "Substantial" is one of those key words at WP discussions which can mean whatever we want it to mean at the time--the operational meaning is "sufficient to pass afd". In practice, the degree of depth necessary for that depends to a considerable extent on whether or not we want an article, though we pretend in the written guidelines it's the other way around. Considering what tends to be available for this sort of subject, it's sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 07:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you are arguing for, DGG, is a listing or mention, which we have at List of Texas state prisons. Your argument is that prisons (even non-government ones) are important enough for us to list them, as in a gazetteer, and I agree with you, and will shift my !vote to redirect to List of Texas state prisons. However, while I agree we should list all prisons, I can't agree that Wikipedia users/editors should be the ones to decide if a particular prison is notable enough for a stand alone encyclopedia article; for that we use WP:GNG which does require "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". If anyone feels that more information can be provided about East Texas Multi-Use Facility in the manner of a gazetteer (date of opening, number of prisoners, etc), then that is best done by building on the existing gazetteer of Texas state prisons rather than creating multiple stub articles. I am, as I say above, still open to shifting my !vote if someone comes up with an independent source where the prison is the main topic. SilkTork (talk) 10:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SilkTork: -- wait, a 3rd party source has to treat the subject as the main topic of its coverage? Please say more about that. --Lockley (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Yes. If someone finds an independent source where the prison is the main topic I will certainly consider changing my !vote. An article doesn't always need to be the main topic, it can be sufficient that a source addresses the topic directly and in detail; however, that a source, or even several, has the subject as a main topic doesn't always in itself confirm notability, as per WP:EVENT, where a subject may receive main page coverage in several newspapers, but only for a day, and WP:BOOKCRIT, where a press release or review is reprinted in several magazines and newspapers. It depends on circumstances, so I cannot guarantee that I will change my !vote, but I will certainly look into it. SilkTork (talk) 10:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the sources I linked to? At least one of the sources *did* treat the prison and its program as the main topic. It certainly addressed it in detail anyway... Vitalis196 (talk) 15:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge: I agree the article does not have SIGCOV from IS RS for a stand alone article. I agree institutions such as prisons are usually notable even lacking SIGCOV required by other subjects covered by ORGCRIT and NBUILD. Since the article is only a substub, it can easily be redirected/merged to List of Texas state prisons without any loss. // Timothy :: t | c | a 13:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm the original author. In 2016 I looked at scores of state prison articles for all 50 states. A population of 2200 is big for a prison, even in Texas. Official state sources on prisons tend to be skimpy, confusing, inaccurate, and especially subject to link rot. MTC's descriptions of their own properties are not much better -- for instance, Texas and MTC call this facility by two separate names, "East Texas Multi-Use Facility" and "East Texas Treatment (XQ)". See the above comment by Vitalis196 finding at least 4 addl sources under that second name. That's news to me, and kind of important in this particular discussion. This prison is certainly verifiable. I believe it's notable. --Lockley (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.