Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Police Inspector Blog

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Police Inspector Blog

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

The article seems to be written as a PR piece for the blog. The problem with blogs is that Wikipedia needs to hold them to a very high standard indeed, and this article does not meet that standard. Had this been presented today at WP:AFC I would have referred it back to the submitter thus:

"We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today."

I level the same criticisms at it as the article it is rather than the draft I would have reviewed in that manner. With regard to the references we have a welter of primary sources. The Daily Mail is very rarely considered, too, to be a reliable source.

I contend that the topic itself might be notable enough for a substantially edited article if references can be found that meet the criteria we have. I would not object to an outcome that migrates it to the Draft: namespace for it to be worked upon in peace and quiet, but I do not believe this article, with these references, is suitable for main namespace. The topic is most assuredly interesting and I found it to be illuminating, but that does not of itself mean it qualifies for an article unless the references show different. Fiddle Faddle 23:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a matter of record this was reviewed and accepted at AFC in 2011 by an editor who is now retired. Had they not been retired I would have asked for their thoughts in this discussion. Fiddle Faddle 23:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I put this blog up a few years ago due to the (then) media attention it was getting and as a favour to Inspector Gadget (who I've never met but I used to comment regularly on his blog). If this needs some trimming then I am happy to do this however I am not adept at understanding Wiki policies and/ or protocols so if anyone would like to point me in the right direction then feel free. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.187.204.180 (talk) 00:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You will find the element in quotes in the nomination an excellent place to start. It has links to the great majority of useful places. Fiddle Faddle 13:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've trimmed the article down to a bit-more-than-a-stub and added sources. There was actually quite a lot already cited in the previous version, including significant coverage in the press (not just the Mail), and a direct response to one of the blog's posts from the Minister of Policing, so I don't think notability is in question. @Timtrent: please note, unlike the usual practice at AfC, we base our discussions at AfD on the sources that are available, not just the ones cited in the article. The burden is on the nominator to ensure that adequate sources aren't available before nominating. – Joe (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 01:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Joe Roe's arguments and cleanup. I'm afraid the nominator failed to do a proper WP:BEFORE search. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:09, 9 January 2017 (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.