Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CrimeLine

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. - Mailer Diablo 08:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CrimeLine[edit]

A website/newsletter that doesn't seem to have been subject of a secondary article. It doesn't seem to meet WP:ATT. The only secondary "reference" listed in the article is a link to a website which contains the following text: "The Crown Prosecution Service (Claimant) -V- South East Surrey Youth Court (Defendant) And X (Interested Party) [2005] EWHC 2929 (Admin), brought to our attention by Andrew Keogh, editor of CrimeLine." That doesn't anywhere meet WP:ATT. Delete as lacking any secondary coverage and failing WP:ATT. (I haven't found any sources while googling, but note that it is excessively difficult to Google as "crimeline" is used for about a million things.) Wickethewok 05:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In adding the secondary reference, I had added it under the presumtion that CrimeLine had been referenced in a document to the House of Commons. The editor, Andrew Keogh, is himself a prominant attorney in Great Britain and a seperate Wikipedia project which is based on the website. However, the IP address of the original author Awkeogh has been blocked for sometime which may or may not have an effect on the article's credibility. MadMax 07:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. The only media mentions of Crimeline I could find referred to the RTE television programme in Ireland. The assertion in the article that "the website has been used by the British government" does not hold water. The link actually goes to a memorandum presented by the Law Society (the governing body of UK solicitors) before a Select Committee of the House of Commons, not to anything produced by the Government, and the observation it is used to support is a bland one (that old legislation and new legislation sometimes don't mix too well). Sam Blacketer 10:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've modified to statement based on your points. I'm curious, is CrimeLine at least a major criminal justice newsletter in Great Britain ? MadMax 21:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert in the field, but from all that I have been able to gather, the answer is in the negative. Sam Blacketer 22:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of third party coverage. --RaiderAspect 10:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Maybe it has more notability in the UK than I realize (realise?), but for now it seems weak on notability. Realkyhick 23:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A mention in a footnote in a memorandum to a select committee does not constitute Notability. NBeale 06:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in the article establishes notability. Lack of third-party reliable sources and references. utcursch | talk 06:04, 18 March 2007 (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.