Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Idaho Juvenile Detention Centers

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 - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Idaho Juvenile Detention Centers

Delete obvious copyvio, though I cannot find the source. It is possible to write an article on this topic - but what we have now hurts WP more than it helps. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I agree that it reads like a copyvio, but suspicion is not proof, so I don't think "obvious copyvio" is a fair rationale. The article is certainly mostly {{unreferenced}}, un-{{wikify}}-ed, and un-{{categorize}}-d, but these are avenues of improvement, not rationales for deletion. No vote. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 15:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, I am aware of those issues - and that they're no rationales for deletion - which is why I did not list them in my nomination. And yes, suspicion is not proof. - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Obvious copyvio, or just a polished writer submitting their first article to Wikipedia? Lacking proof of the former I think we need to assume it is the latter. This is a very nice article, although it needs wikification and references as indicated above. If the author could include one or two references at the end of the article I think we would allow a fair amount of interpolation without complaining, as there's nothing controversial or questionable about the information itself. -- technopilgrim 18:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• I am the one who wrote this entire article. I wrote it somewhat from personally being in the places I wrote about as a juvenile but I tried my best to confirm all of the information with the help of the Idaho Department of Juvenile Corrections and also the department of probation. I linked to the homepage of the Idaho Youth Ranch which confirms some of the information. I can promise you that not a single word in this article is a copyright violation as I wrote the entire article myself. I know I lack sources that havebeen published in writting but I admit this on the talk page for the article. It definitly needs improvment and more sources, and I am working on this, but I am having trouble finding any documentation on these various places, although as far as oral information goes from the people that work at them I could easily get this. Every word in this article is true and I can promise this. It is also not a copyright violation I can assure you of this also. It just needs more sources. I am not logged on now but my user name is tuluvas2 and I will come back online later to confirm that I am in fact the one who wrote this article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.24.244.223 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-05T18:09:08 (UTC)
  • If what you say is true, we might have a problem with WP:NOR in the alternative. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but with massive cleanup and wikifying. I'm also questioning the "notability" of this thing, but there needs to be some work done on this article to meet the "standards." I'll try to get some work done on this if I get some free time. Yanksox 03:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Prisons are under represented here. Vegaswikian 18:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Tuluvas2 17:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)I agree that juvenile facilities are highly under represented, not only here but in general. Part of the reason for this is due to federally and locally enforced confidentiality laws (especially in regards to juveniles) and the other part is most likely due to the fact that the select individuals who possess information regarding these facilities (administrators of the Department of Juvenile Justice and to a lesser extent probation officers) are not highly motivated to release it. In my (POV) experience the administrators of the Idaho Department of Juvenile Corrections are a fairly secretive group of people. This combined with the fact that the information does not (to my knowledge) need to be published by law leads to a surprising lack of information regarding the entire system. As for NPOV I can see how you would get this perception but where I drew from personal experience was more on absolute truths than information which could be subjective. For example, Five County Detention Center does have a shower unit like the one I described, and my own subjective experience cannot bias this objective statement. NPOV is generally only applicable to those things which can be measured subjectively (good and evil, beautiful and ugly) and in general can not be applied to things which are stated in fact (The stick is one foot long). If any information in the article I wrote is perceived as POV I would ask that it is removed, reworded, or has a source citied. Also I believe that it is important that Wikipedia keeps this article even if the article must be restructured, reworded, reformatted and re-referenced to make it comply with the standards of Wikipedia. I am currently searching for more sources than the minimal ones I currently have listed. I would also like to apologize for my (obvious I assume) minimal skills in formatting text on wikipedia. I am still learning and have minimal time to learn =).

• Tuluvas2 17:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC) I cleaned up everything I saw that could be seen as non NPOV.

• Tuluvas2 19:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC) Okay sorry to continue adding posts but upon rereading the post by CrazyRussian I noticed that I mistook NOR for NPOV. This is the reason for my trying to explain why I did not think my article was non NPOV in the above paragraph, and also was my reason for cleaning up the article and removing any text I saw as even remotely non NPOV. Something which is original research is defined as anything to which one of the following could apply:

1. It introduces a theory or method of solution; 2. It introduces original ideas; 3. It defines new terms; 4. It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms; 5. It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; 6. It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source; 7. It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.

I would have to say that the vast majority of the article does not fall under one of these classifications.

1. The article does not introduce a theory or a method of solution.

2. It does not introduce original ideas seeing as it does not really introduce ideas at all (assuming one would define an idea not as an objective fact but as theoretical pondering or thinking).

3. The article does not define new terms, I would say that some of the terms could be considered neologisms but there are reputable sources that would define them (For example “IDJC” and “JCC” and “commit” are not commonly used words, but a simple Google search will show several websites that use them in proper context.)

4. It does not provide or presume new definitions of any pre-existing terms.

5. It does introduce an analysis or synthesis of established facts, but they most certainly are not presented in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor (or anyone for that matter). Also they are verifiable (Despite the fact that some of them are not currently verified in the article. As I said before more sources are needed, but they are out there I am sure, few as they may be.)

6. I can see how the sentence "it is a highly subjective decision and fully up to the judge if a juvenile gets committed" could be considered original research under the 5th rule listed above seeing as I have no source and it could be considered to be an argument. For this reason I will remove that sentence and instead add only that it is up to a judge whether or not to commit the juvenile, as this states objective fact and does not try to present something that could be perceived as an argument.

As I have said before I know that this article needs more references, and this is reason for improvement, but it is not in my opinion non-npov nor is it original research. It just states objective facts that need more sources.

• Tuluvas2 15:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC) 15:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I added a few informative sources to the list and referenced two things to a very reliable source. I know that many more sources are still needed but I hope that this adds some amount of quality to the article so that maybe people will think it is a good contribution to wikipedia and doesn't need to be deleted. Once again I am not sure if I am doing everything correctly or not and if I am doing anything wrong I would like it if someone would inform me so that I can correct anything I am doing wrong. thanks! (Opps, forgot to sign on) Tuluvas2 15:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, as no one has been able to provide any proof of copyvio after several days of listing in AfD, this rationale is without merit. Author shows a commendable commitment to understand and adhere to WP policies. Subject (prisons) is inherently notable, and my original comment about verifiability has begun to be addressed. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 17:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Tuluvas2 14:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC) I have referenced even more things to reliable sources. I have found actualy a wealth of information on some of these programs, which I added links to at the end of the article. There is actually probably enough information from those links for somebody to add several paragraphs of referenced information to the article if they so desire, but at the moment I do not have the time to do so. Also due to my poor skills at formatting wikipedia I think that some of the reference subscripts are showing up a bit out of order. I don't know if this is the correct place to put this or not, but I think that the article is clearly referenced now. How do I request that it is taken off of the list for deletion page? Wait 5 days?

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.