Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human trafficking in Angeles City

Human trafficking in Angeles City

Human trafficking in Angeles City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Lots of original research, a probable POV fork, undue weight, mess of a thing. The sources don't really describe any detailed problem with human trafficking in this city and it appears to only exist because of undue weight concerns in the main article. A good example of sourcing that doesn't source the article subject. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 17:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment What is the "main article"? / edg ☺ ☭ 17:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Angeles City Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 17:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Would you suggest this information (where sourced and so forth) be merged to that article? / edg ☺ ☭ 17:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm not convinced its even worthy of that. what large city doesn't have prostitutes? Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 17:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
        • That argument has been made before here. Since the early days of Clark Air Base, Angeles City has become known as a center for prostitution. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Yes and it appears this article is an attempt to circumvent the concept that it wasnt worth including in the main article. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 18:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
            • "Wasn't worth including" is one perspective. Someone else might call it tendentious editing by editors WP:OWNing that article. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
              • The sourcing is so poor in this article that it appears that the nameless ones you're talking about were right. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 19:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete.

The first sentence alone has three sources, the first of which references prostitution in 1989 [1], the second of which mentions Angeles once, amongst a list of twenty two cities an organisation is going to concentrate on [2], and the third saying that a man arrested for sleeping with minors owns a club there [3]. Whilst these suggest that there is an issue of prostitution in the Phillipines, they (a) don't actually state that Angeles specifically has a 'significant' issue with it and (b) I'm not convinced that the fact that a city has prostitution is really worthy of a seperate article - as 'Weighted Companion' notes, what city doesn't?

After reading most of the sources, I think it might be worthy of an article of human trafficking in the Philippines, but I don't see the justification for having one specifically for Angeles, as a lot of the sources mention Angeles briefly and usually talk about the wider issue of trafficking in the Phillipines. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 17:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you're understating the significance of the 3rd link.

Agnew, who lives the life of a millionaire, moved to the Philippines seven years ago from Northern Ireland where he served as a sergeant with the RUC. And he soon opened up a string of go-go clubs in Angeles City. ... Next week Agnew will learn whether or not he will face a more serious charge of trafficking in females.

And the article has 100 more references. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

My point is that none of the sources back up the statements made - this is a case of WP:SYNTH. As I stated, I have reviewed the rest of the sources and imo in the majority of cases they don't actually say what the article says. The use of the first three sources was just to make my point. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 19:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Weak delete The nature of the article, with the long quotions in the references, makes it clear that this is a POV essay in guise of a WP article. The references are individual articles about individual events, amounts to the use of OR. Not saying a suitable article cant be written, but this is not it. Better to start over. DGG (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep, but tag with WP:NPOV. Redmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 18:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, The article is extensively well sourced, one must review all the sources and look at those sources as a whole, rather then picking one or two. When for example, one looks at the documentary http://www.hopeinheavenfilm.com/index.htm it may be asked how many cities in the world have documantaries made about the human trafficking problem...very few indeed. How many vities in the world have thousands of children as young as 10 years old forced to service up to 20 customers a night...not many. This is a stand alone article, it is a very valuable addition to wikipedia, and an article that is offers a good reference point for those researching the suject of human trafficking in Angeles. It may be there are some issues with the presentation of the article, but its only a matter of some experienced editors being involved.Susanbryce (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. While there are some sources talking about Angeles City in particular, most of the sources discuss the Philippines generally (for instance, citation #27, Amnesty International). The current article fails WP:SYN badly. It may be salvageable if rewritten extensively to deal with Human trafficking in the Philippines. I have no idea why the author felt this particular city was important enough amidst the wider problems to merit its own article, but there certainly do not seem to be sufficient sources dealing with Angeles City in particular to support some of the claims. That, using the same example, Amnesty International has pointed to abuse of prostitutes by police in the Philippines should not be used to support a claim that police in Angeles City did so, unless cited much more carefully than the current article does. --Dhartung | Talk 19:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)