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 Delete. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 09:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer village in China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

no indication of WP:notability. Clusters of cancers appear the world over so there is nothing significant in this. Also the article is too small. Kf8 (talk) 05:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nothing at all notable about the general concept  Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 09:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Important and notable topic. Article needs substantial further development. This is a big issue, with much discussion and emerging scholarship, not only in China, but globally. Should be ample sources for further development. Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added several references which can be used for further development of the article, and also cleaned it up a bit, more generally. With even a quick look, there is no shortage of substantial and notable sources. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rename. Merge with cancer cluster and redirect. Notable enough to be the subject of articles in the BBC (cited in article), the Washington Post [1], Reuters [2], and the Guardian [3]. Should be retitled to "List of cancer villages in China" until there is sufficient prose for a separate article. Does need a lot of work.--Wikimedes (talk) 17:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The thing is that all these articles only vaguely use the term "cancer village" without any specific data or definition. The list in the article right now is not supported by any reliable source. -Zanhe (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about reliable sources. (Wp:recentism and wp:notnews also apply somewhat, but the phenomenon has probably been around for decades and isn't going away soon, even if the terminology is new.) I'll wait a few days to see if someone addresses the sparseness of information in reliable sources before changing my vote to merge per your proposal below.--Wikimedes (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

News reports, references added by Sonnenfeld, and a Google Scholar search [4] establishes notability of term. It is, however a specific case of cancer clusters and should be covered there, with a redirect so that people looking for "cancer villages" can find the info. If its coverage in the cancer clusters article becomes extensive enough for a stand alone article, an article on cancer villages can be re-created. The current list is not from a reliable source and appears to be unusable. Examples of reliably documented cancer clusters in China can be added to List of cancer clusters. It also deserves mention in Pollution in China.--Wikimedes (talk) 19:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. According to "List of countries by population", China has more than four times as many inhabitants as the United States has, so "Cancer village in China" is at least as important as "List of Superfund sites in the United States".—Wavelength (talk) 18:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Superfund sites are designated by legislation from the US Congress. On the other hand, the Chinese government only "appears to have acknowledged the existence of so-called cancer villages" according to the BBC article cited as a main source. This concept is way too vague to justify its own article. -Zanhe (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete. It's ludicrous to have an article about such a vague and transient concept. What are we going to have next? Heart attack city? Diabetes town? Autism province? Car crash highway? The possibilities are endless. Even the BBC article cited as a main source says there is no technical definition for the term "cancer village". -Zanhe (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative proposal: summarize the article and merge the information to Pollution in China. -Zanhe (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Heart attack city, Diabetes town, etc. - This is a straw man argument. Of course we should not have articles on phrases that Zanhe has just made up.--Wikimedes (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The concept of cancer clusters seem to go back to 17th Century English chimney sweeps, so the concept is not transient. "Cancer Village" is a term that is still in use, so it's impossible to tell if it's transient, but by the first Further reading reference in the article, it goes back at least 6 years.
• Whether a term is vague or has no technical definition is probably not relevant to whether it can be the subject of a Wikipedia article, but is useful for determining what can be included in a list.--Wikimedes (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with cancer cluster and redirect. A few lines on China should be added there. The full list of villages (Which is sourced to a map in a blog!!!!!) is certainly not notable for inclusion unless a reliable source is found talking about naming those specific villages, and it is not worth keeping. --Garrondo (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The term used in epidemiology is "cancer cluster", and we already have an article for that worldwide phenomenon. This article does not contain uniquely useful information, but is rather a list of villages which, if publicized, could harm their reputations. Shrigley (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to this page, "[t]he government of [one city, Weifang, in east China] is offering 100,000 yuan (US$16,000) to anyone who blows the whistle on companies illegally discharging waste underground." That government seems to be unconcerned about publicity (about pollution) harming its reputation.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And there I thought Wikipedia was about using reliable sources to create an encyclopedia. Now that I know it's about protecting and harming reputations I'll change my editing habits. (end sarcasm).--Wikimedes (talk) 04:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's an unnotable concept with no credibility other than a recent coined sensationalism. It does not warrant a standalone article. --Cold Season (talk) 16:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Much of the above discussion is focused on notability. I'd like to try to summarize here what may or may not be notable about this topic, following WP:GNG:

• Significant coverage - Do the sources address the subject directly in detail? Yes
• Reliability - Do the sources have editorial integrity? Yes: Shanghai Daily (a Chinese government-run publication), BBC News, The Lancet, Journal of Contemporary China...
• Sources - Based on secondary sources? Yes
• Independent of the subject - Yes
• Presumed - Does significant coverage in reliable sources establish a presumption of suitability for inclusion? Yes

Beyond this, statements have been made about this being a passing sensation. News coverage goes back until at least 2007, so that is six years. Not ephemeral in today's sound-byte world... The Wei et al. (2008) study suggests that 7-8% of the population of one of the villages involved has died from cancers. The number of identified villages has more than doubled from 2007-2013. The topic and interest in it, is not going to go away. Much room for development & refinement of the topic, but I can't see deleting it because of insufficient notability. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect (and perhaps merge) to the cancer cluster article. There's nothing particularly significant about these villages versus other cancer clusters worldwide. Nyttend (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The significance of this particular 'cluster' (actually series of clusters) lies in the facts that i) China is the world's most populous country; ii) in recent years, it has been the most rapidly and consistently growing part of the global economy; iii) the appearance of these 'cancer villages' is a relatively new phenomenon, closely tied in with rapid industrialization; iv) they are geographically dispersed within China; v) the issue has been the focus of substantial media focus in China and around the world; vi) the Chinese government now is acknowledging that, indeed, there is a problem... If Love Canal in the United States has an article, certainly these 'cancer villages' in China deserve their own. Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is not the way to capture this data. Cancer clusters should be held in lists, very tightly sourced, and probably not by country. The current version of the page does not clarify whether particular kinds of cancer were common in these villages. JFW | T@lk 22:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "cancer" occurs 49 times on this page, and six types of cancer are mentioned: throat cancer, lung cancer, skin cancer, liver cancer, esophagus cancer, and stomach cancer. Also, details about the types of pollutants are mentioned. If the list is converted to a sortable wikitable (and even if not), then those extra details can be mentioned in the Wikipedia article.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem is that the page above appears to be a personal blog and cannot be considered a reliable source. -Zanhe (talk) 04:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. These web pages may be of interest.
  • China Pollution Map Database
  • Home--公众环境研究中心

—Wavelength (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Beyond general notability of the topic, many of the comments, above, focus on the reliability of the source(s) of the 'Selected list of cancer villages' in the article. The immediate source of that list is a blog, indeed not generally considered a reliable source. The blog entry is based on that author's 'ethnographic' work in China, and refers to the earlier (2007) map published online in China by an environmental activist. That map has been widely circulated online in China and beyond, and was updated and expanded in 2013, catalyzing a second round of press coverage. The latter is reported to have been done by an undergraduate student, again self-published online. I agree that these sources -- though widely covered -- should not be considered reliable as the basis for an encyclopedic article, and that any entries on the 'Selected list...' for which there are not additional, reliable, independent published sources should be removed. The residual question for me is whether, having removed non-verifiable entries on the list, there would be enough left of the article to justify its continuation as a stub... Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 11:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a concept covered in Cancer cluster, specific instances may warrant coverage (as with Love Canal) based on sourcing (not evident at this point). -- Scray (talk) 00:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment.—Unfortunately, deletion appears to be imminent. Interested editors may wish to preserve a copy in user space or off-line in preparation for a time when better sources become available.—Wavelength (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as long as there is no reliable sourcing. A "map that is being widely circulated on the Internet", of unknown authorship, is about the most ridiculous piece of sourcing I've seen on Wikipedia for a while. Take that and the list of villages away and the entire content of the article is reduced to a seven-word sub-stub: "Cancer villages in China: there are some." That's all we know about them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with cancer cluster and redirect - Unless, of course, all the sources are unreliable, in which case delete. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:13, 31 May 2013 (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.