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. Though the nomination was withdrawn, the article needs to be improved by expanding it and adding most (if not all) of the sources in this discussion to prevent renomination in the near future. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 13:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Xinjiang Victims Database (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Subject is not notable. The article is about an NGO which fails WP:ORG, because the article's sources do not contain significant coverage of the topic itself. Rather, they tend to simply cite the database or quote its founder, Gene Bunin. - - mathmitch7 ^{(talk/contribs)} 13:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by nominator. It seems that a good selection of sources have been found. The article still needs improvement, but it seems clear that there is significant coverage of the database itself and by all appearances the database passes WP:ORG - - mathmitch7 ^{(talk/contribs)} 21:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thriley (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Thriley (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Thriley (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Thriley (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Thriley (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Thriley (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom, fails WP:SIGCOV. A merge is also possible, but not sure what the best article would be. Jumpytoo Talk 17:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The sources Silver seren, in particular the Eurasianet and scholar article gives enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Jumpytoo Talk 17:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There seems to be plenty of direct, reliable coverage of the database. Funny enough, primarily because of the Chinese government response to its existence. Including in their propaganda outlets. Some examples:

• Officials: 'Xinjiang Victims Database' is based on fabrications - CCTV News
• Xinjiang-related databases fabricated by anti-China think tanks based on false testimonies, purely political maneuvers - Global Times
• China hounds Xinjiang data collectors - Eurasianet
• Xinjiang ‘internment camps’: research institute got it wrong, official says - South China Morning Post
• Xinjiang victims database curator barred from entering Uzbekistan, twice - Eurasianet
• The 7th Press Conference by Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region on Xinjiang-related Issues in Beijing - Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China
• 'Evidence' seeks to smear Xinjiang, says official - China Daily
• China Smears Former Xinjiang Residents Who Testified About Abuses in the Region - Radio Free Asia
• An Empirical Assessment of China’s Counterterrorism Efforts and Securitization of Turkic Muslims - Studies in Conflict & Terrorism

So, yeah, plenty of notable coverage, if biased in regards to the Chinese news sources. Silverseren^C 17:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately the Chinese news sources are WP:DEPRECATED and cannot be used to establish notability. The Eurasianet sources are definitely WP:SIGCOV, and I can't read the scholar article but if it has discussion of the source it used it could be enough to pass the bar. The rest of the sources seem to be just passing mentions which doesn't provide WP:SIGCOV. Jumpytoo Talk 18:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not surprised they are deprecated, considering they are very clear propaganda pieces, but I feel that their large amount of coverage of the subject of this article does contribute to notability of it. As for the scholarly article, just look at the abstract, since it uses this databse as it's primary focus:

"Why does China view its Turkic Muslims as a security threat? Although scholars have written a good deal on China’s repression of minorities, the number of empirical studies about China’s ever-expanding incarceration and surveillance of Turkic Muslims is rather limited. To identify the reasons for China’s repressive policies, this article draws evidence from the Xinjiang Victims Database that presents video testimonies of 8973 people whose family members and friends are in China’s prisons and detention camps. The evidence shows that China’s policies stem from a constructivist securitization approach where religion, culture and identity play central roles although the country frames its policies through a realist discourse on terrorism and security."

And there's more sources that can be found, these were just from the first two pages of Google results. Silverseren^C 18:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jumpytoo: The journal article includes detailed descriptions of the source, including the number of testimonies present, the content of the testimonies, the individual responsible for founding the database and the time the database was founded, the reasons the database was created, the number of variables available in the database, the ways in which the database classifies detentions, a discussion on the limitation on the database's use, as well as comments on whether or not the testimonies recorded in the database are consistent with leaked government documents and reports made by human rights organizations. The journal article itself heavily uses the data obtained from the database in performing its analysis, and it describes the study as using a "novel" source at the time it was published. In my mind, the journal article provides significant coverage of the database itself. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for checking that for me, that would definitely be SIGCOV. That with the Eurasiannet is enough so I'll go change my vote. Jumpytoo Talk 17:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV/WP:ORG. This article uses six sources for one sentence saying "the XVD exists", and the only change in the week its been up has been to say who founded it. There is no reason for this article to exist when you can simply copy this sentence to any article mentioning the database. Merge with Uyghur Genocide if we must.BSMRD (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You forgot your signature. Also, BSMRD, apologies, but you seem like a re-activated account? Since you started editing again after 2 years just 3 weeks ago (and only 1 edit before that time) and immediately began editing Xinjiang cotton industry and Uyghur genocide with edit summaries like "Removed see also link to genocide denial, no other genocide article links to genocide denial in see also and the status of this genocide is a matter of serious debate". So both rather advanced in your Wikpedia specific argumentation, but also on very specific article topics. Silverseren^C 05:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I suppose my recent activity would seem somewhat suspicious. I suppose that there isn't really anything I can say beyond "yes I am the same person", I am familiar with wikipedia policy and use it to justify my edits especially in contentious articles like those on the Xinjiang issue. I will freely admit to being biased against the idea of a "Uyghur genocide", and perhaps I should have jumped (back, though this is really the first time I have actually gotten in it) into wikipedia in a less contentious area. I have found I rather enjoy editing and have started the (relatively) less contentious work of fixing the tone of John Brown (abolitionist). I suppose your concerns are founded but I am the same person, just with more free time and a bigger interest in editing. Also thanks for spotting me forgetting the signature, my bad. BSMRD (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. In addition to the sources presented by Silver seren, the database has been the subject of a 2018 long-form piece in The Globe and Mail, as well as coverage in USA Today. In my mind, the piece from The Globe and Mail undoubtedly shows significant coverage, since the story is entirely focused on the database itself. This, taken with the detailed descriptions of the organization (including information on its founding) in a peer reviewed journal article mentioned by Silver seren and the non-trivial mentions of the source across news publications, constitute significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources. As a result, the organization should be presumed notable. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Week keep or merge. Cited by media and scholars, although the coverage has trouble meeting SIGCOV, ex [1] "The largest public collection is the Xinjiang Victims Database, managed by independent scholar Gene A. Bunin, which at the time of writing has collected over 4900 accounts describing...". If not kept, this is certainly worth merging somewhere, and it's not like the article is big enough that said merge would be harder to do. Given [2] I am leaning to keep over merge. Certainly this shouldn't be just deleted.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:50, 17 May 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.