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 redirect. Although there is some support for pure deletion, none address why a redirect would be inappropriate. Rlendog (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Natchitoches Parish Detention Center[edit]

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

Another editor thought this absolutely empty article about an obviously non notable government organization did not qualify for speedy A7, so here we are. John from Idegon (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indeed. Absolutely no notability as per WP:GNG and WP:FRINGE. BTW, who was it that thought did not qualify? I see no interaction on the page- just you adding then removing the CSD tag!!! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It had been listed for CSD in May by another editor, and then the tag removed as inapplicable.[1] I agree that it doesn't fit into what we mean by "organization" in the criteria, because (AFAIK) we don't consider units or agencies of governments within that term, and even if we did this is a facility. postdlf (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unremarkable lockup belonging to a sheriff's office of dubious notability itself. RS interest is limited to routine and incidental coverage from the local papers. (Arrested people are booked there). • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Natchitoches Parish, Louisiana, which already mentions it, and broaden the "prison" section to law enforcement generally (and also redirect Natchitoches Parish Sheriff's Office there). postdlf (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Staszek Lem (talk) 20:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a plausible redirect to the parish or the sheriff's office, this is not eligible for deletion (WP:R). Content is mergeable. A7 is absolutely out of the question. A prison is clearly a building. A building is not an organisation. Might well be notable. Not opposed to actually keeping this. The "find sources" links above do not produce all the sources, firstly due to it having other names, and secondly due to Google's problem with speech marks. For example, a search for Natchitoches Parish Jail (without speech marks) in GBooks produces quite a few relevant results that don't come up when speech marks are used (including some that should come up). Reliable coverage is not limited to newspapers, local or otherwise. There is stuff in GBooks, in particular. Had a capacity of 67 in 1981: [2]. (Presumably that means 67 inmates). James500 (talk) 07:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In fact, in view of the coverage in more than 120 results in GNews for "Natchitoches Parish Detention Center" alone, and the coverage elsewhere, I am positively in favour of keeping this. James500 (talk) 07:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The overwhelming majority of these ghits are passing mentions, usually saying suspect X "was booked into the Natchitoches Parish Detention Center." No in-depth coverage about the facility. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A statement to the effect of "X was detained in the prison" is coverage about the prison. It might even be worth mentioning in the article if X is sufficiently famous. Significant coverage is more than one trivial mention, but hundreds of brief mentions might contribute something to notability. I would have thought that the fact that something was constantly in the press was an indicator of notability. It suggests that the prison is impossible, or at least difficult, to ignore. "Overwhelming majority" isn't all of them, so what about the others? The coverage in GBooks looks detailed. For example, the National Jail and Adult Detention Directory contains what looks like an encyclopedia article on the prison. The material in The Last Hayride is not a trivial mention, which, to me, means something like an entry in a phonebook. Neither is the coverage in Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, which gives statistics, over no less than four pages, about the inmates who claim to have been sexually abused there. James500 (talk) 07:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your characterization of those news sources being "about" the jail is not consistent with consensus interpretation of GNG. News stories saying that suspect X was detained there don't become more than trivial and incidental mentions just because there have been hundreds of them because that doesn't in any way help us write an article about the jail itself. And judging from the Gbooks view, the National Jail and Adult Detention Directory is just that, a directory of all jails, which just lists contact info, year of construction, and the names of the sheriff and warden. That's far from an "encyclopedia article". The Last Hayride material talks about the jail only regarding a former sheriff's policies there in the context of a single parish sheriff election. I don't think that or statistics from a national DOJ survey (Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates) provide a basis for a standalone article on this jail, not when you imagine what a spotty and ultimately trivial article would result. I'd expect all state or federal prisons to merit articles, but this is merely a county jail (LA calls counties "parishes"), which the aforementioned Directory said had a mere staff of 5 in 1995 (while prisons may have hundreds). Given all of that, the level of appropriate coverage for this jail would seem to be one or two sentences in an appropriate article noting the jail exists and relating core facts such as capacity, and/or inclusion in a list of prisons/jails/detention facilities for the state. postdlf (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus interpretation of GNG. If there was any consensus, it would by now be included in the guideline in express words. And where would this consensus come from? Show me the specific RfC in question if there is one. What the news stories have done is to compile a lengthy list of people detained in the prison, and the circumstances of their detention, presumably because they consider it important. Otherwise, why keep mentioning it? It would be technically feasible for us to reproduce that, thereby providing a means of expanding the article. BLP might prevent us from including that immediately, but (barring major advances in medicine) it won't apply forever (because, in the present state of things, people do eventually die), and it doesn't affect the notability of a place for which there are other sources. The National Jail and Adult Detention Directory also includes, in addition to the things you mentioned, rated cap, number of staff, number of COs, planned changes (namely a new facility), size of "op budget" (nearly a quarter of a million dollars), "pop" (presumably population/number of detainees), size of cap budget and total admissions: [3]. That looks like a detailed encyclopedia article to me, and some of the articles in the book (for bigger prisons) are even more detailed. For our purposes, a "directory" is a bare list with no annotations other than contact details, like a phone book. It will not mention age or size (whether in terms of numbers of people or the amount of money). Just because a book labels itself as a "directory" doesn't mean it is one for our purposes. Whether The Last Hayride "talks about the jail only regarding a former sheriff's policies there in the context of a single parish sheriff election" is irrelevant, as GNG says that the topic need not be the primary subject of the source. That book discusses the prison directly and at great length. I can't see any grounds for excluding the DOJ statistics either (which I note were republished by a commercial bookseller). I am not convinced that coverage of criticism based on the presence of pornography in, or the absence of religious services from, the prison is a trivial subject (even if federal law is the cause). Statistics on sexual abuse certainly will not make for a trivial article. I don't think that an article based on the available sources would be "spotty", but in any event, I don't see that as a valid objection, as there are many historically important topics for which only "spotty" information is available. And there are other sources in GBooks. I think an adequate description of this jail would take more than one or two sentences (unless they are unusually long sentences). I don't think the number of staff is the relevant number. I think the relevant number is the maximum capacity (which seems to have been 67 prisoners in 1981). James500 (talk) 09:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note - As the nominator, redirecting to the Parrish would be a completely acceptable outcome for this. John from Idegon (talk) 04:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - I don't even see the need for a redirect —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:R, our guideline, we only delete plausible redirects if they are positively harmful. This doesn't meet any of the criteria for deletion. It does however satisfy many of the criteria for keeping, including navigation, facilitating accidental linking, avoiding creation of duplicate article, preserving useful page history etc. James500 (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2015 (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.