Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fbi surveillance

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. It's been userfied to User:David Tornheim/FBI surveillance already. Mkdw ^talk 21:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fbi surveillance[edit]

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

Personal essay. Wikipedia is not a place for academic papers. Justeditingtoday (talk) 21:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 21:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy This subject is clearly notable. I'm amazed the page didn't exist. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have made a copy to my draft space, deleted all the opinion, and started working on assembling WP:RS on section for Don't be a Puppet (New York Times) and for article on the larger scope of the subject. Here: User:David_Tornheim/FBI_surveillance. I don't think it would take much work to make this into a stub article. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Although, the creator should had more time to improve the article to comply with NPOV. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 23:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article itself says it isn't notable: "Not one major news company has produced any information on this story." Bennv3771 (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FBI Surveillance is not notable? You have to be kidding. Do a google search and you immediately come with great WP:RS like this: [1], [2], [3]. We even have this article: List_of_Americans_under_surveillance (many, if not most, related to FBI). I confident there is a staggering amount of WP:RS on this subject. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim:: Calm down. I wasn't suggesting "FBI Surveillance" isn't notable, I was suggesting "Fbi surveillance" (i.e. this one particular surveillance story that the article is about) isn't notable according to the article itself. I stand by my opinion that this article should be deleted, and if someone wants to write a proper article on "FBI Surveillance" they are welcome to do so. None of the sources you've provided on this are about this particular surveillance story. Bennv3771 (talk) 08:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to user space or draft space: This virtually source-free essay is not balanced and does not belong in article space (NOTESSAY etc.) but can be returned to user or draft space. There is a notable topic in here but finding it and making it policy compliant is not appropriate in article space when this essay is the starting point – allowing a blank-piece-of-paper starting point is preferable. EdChem (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete don't userfy. This is too far from a proper article, it's an opinion piece. Userfy only encourages this kind of stuff and will lead to another deletion discussion later. Legacypac (talk) 07:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a bit of an essay. It's also a bit newsy. Maybe a dash of negative point of view. I would not userfy as then we would be webhosting a non article essay not related to running Wikipedia. The coverage is not sufficient to achieve notability. Dloh cierekim 19:06, 30 April 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.