Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Porch Pirates

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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Porch Pirates[edit]

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

If Wikipedia were to have an article on this topic, it would need to be a rewrite at Package theft. This article is marketing copy from a personal security equipment company. Υπογράφω (talk) 20:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio confirmed. Eventually with the infringing content, there is not enough context to identify the subject. When the infringing content is removed, the article is short enough to satisfy A1. There are no non-infringing revisions. I have tagged this for G12. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was tagged as a copyvio already, and then the article creator (and, I presume, the source website owner) added a CC license to the source. So I don't think G12 is applicable. Υπογράφω (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even with the copyright licence, this doesn't read like an encyclopaedia article at all (the licensed content is from a blog). Adam9007 (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:STARTOVER. This is an advertorial masquerading as an encyclopedia article. Only the dictionary definition appears to be reliably sourced. I'm not yet convinced that package theft needs a stand-alone article. Even if it does, this article would need a fundamental rewrite. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Licensed content from unreliable blog of security firm garbled with passing mention of the term in some sources in order to promote neologism apparently invented by them. This can't be included on Wikipedia per core WP:NOT policy and no evidence this concept exists in mainstream body of literature –Ammarpad (talk) 06:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gene93k. The article inarguably sucks at the moment. Unencyclopedic in tone and generally full of fluff. A fluff-ectomy would kill the patient. If the NYT editor hadn't been so tickled by the term "porch pirate" as to include it in the headline, we would have speedied this. A Train^talk 15:50, 2 January 2018 (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.