Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Police corruption

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. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 05:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Police corruption[edit]

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

This article is a sparse essay, a rant and a ramble composed of original research. There are no facts to back the article up despite it's being online for ages. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - just redirect to corruption. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not appropriate to redirect to corruption, which is a dab page. I'm an idiot for suggesting this. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The whole thing is Original Research at best, and consists only of vague comments, with no substantial information content. I would have no objection to creating a redirect from "Police corruption" to "Corruption", as suggested, but is there any good reason not to delete this inadequate article first? JamesBWatson (talk) 13:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no concerns... but is there a reason to remove the work? Might as well be in the history... but it might as well not be also. It would be interesting historically to see what happened on the article, but no really big issue I suppose. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - As the article stands, even throughout its history, the value is negligible. But a simple redirect will preserve such value as there is. Is redirecting to a disambiguation page valid, though? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hmmm... I'm a bit of an idiot really. Definitely not. Delete. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I can't see a way of rewriting this in any meaningful manner either. That corruption exists within any public body is a given, but corruption is the article, not Police, nor Coast Guard, nor Customs Corruption. And yet corruption is a dictionary definition, not an encyclopaedia article. If we had an article that documented substantiated and substantial episodes of notable and verifiable police corruption that is an article I would support. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is simply a short essay, unreferenced and generalized. The list of links is interesting, though; maybe a different article could be created along the lines of "List of police corruption cases"? --MelanieN (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Keep. While original research can be moved to talk or edited out, it seems fairly obvious that the subject itself is quite capable of supporting an article, without regard to this one's inadequacies. Look at the Google Books and Scholar hits: entire books have been written about this subject. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I added a "further reading" section including some of the more promising leads I found in searches. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Smerdis of Tlön. The subject is clearly worthy of inclusion as a distinct form of Police misconduct, it's too widespread and has too many unique traits to be reduced to just another form of corruption, and the "See also" section already links to a ton of other articles about "substantiated and substantial episodes of notable and verifiable police corruption." Some good work has already been done on improving the article in other ways. Still needs more work, but there's lots of potential here. Jd4v15 (talk) 08:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment that ton is a set of wikilinks to other articles. Wikipedia may not reference itself in that an internal link does not of itself substantiate notability nor verifiability. Your argument, if based upon those, means that this is a list rather than an article. If the article can be improved to save it then please do so with pleasure. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not saying the links in themselves establish the notability of police corruption. I'm saying all those links show that there are notable instances of police corruption which can be used to improve the article along the lines you suggested in one of your earlier comments -- meaning this is a case where improvement, rather than deletion, is the best solution to the article's problems (and yes, I'll do what I can to improve it). My other points don't depend on those links at all. Jd4v15 (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Nomination I recognise that the AfD process must run to completion and that my withdrawal does not stop the process. However I see improvements to the article sufficient to preserve it here. I do not see the improvement as finished by any means, but I see sufficient to withdraw my nomination. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- pablo_hablo. 20:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable topic for an article. Google news search has 23,200 articles about "police corruption", Google book finds 1,638 books about it, and Google scholar search has 7,270 results. Dream Focus 05:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, fleshed out now. Abductive (reasoning) 07:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whole books have been written on this subject, so it's clearly notable. If our treatment of the topic is poor, this should be fixed through editing. Yilloslime ^T_C 03:00, 11 February 2010 (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.