Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Video evidence

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 redirect to Digital evidence. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Video evidence[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article is a definition with examples (and the source cited only mentions two of the examples). Magnolia677 (talk) 23:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep stub just needs expansion; the concept passes WP:N with flying colors. fgnievinski (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N says: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if... It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy". Magnolia677 (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N also says: "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a dictionary entry..." fgnievinski (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the articles in the "See also" section collectively cover just about anything that could possibly be added here. Maybe redirect, I don't know if this is really a likely search term though. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passess WP:GNG my search returns multiple secondary references. There are multiple incoming links. Looks like a stub that needs to be improved to me. Jeepday (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perfectly valid law stub. Bearian (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect this is clearly a reasonable topic for an article, but none of the content is good. We have one sentence and a bunch of wiki-links; the "examples" listed are arbitrary and don't aid in understanding. Digital evidence better handles the topic now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to digital evidence for now, without prejudice to splitting out into a separate article if the amount of content justifies. I agree with power~enwiki, but more wordily, which is my wont. For now, there's just not enough in this article to justify a separate article. It's just a one-sentence unreferenced definition and an arbitrary list of examples. This would be better-suited as a paragraph in digital evidence, which would help to provide additional context. I recognize that historically, not all video evidence is digital; but the reality is that the vast majority of it today is, and furthermore the most significant evidentiary challenges arise in the digital realm. I have no doubt that the subject of video evidence itself is sufficiently notable to merit its own article if and when it's developed (the Google Scholar link above turns up a lot of articles devoted to the subject), but for now, that separate treatment is not justified; the reader is better served seeing its treatment in context than a one-liner. In the absence of a merge, though, keep is my backup !vote. TJRC (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TJRC: your rationale seems to contradict your vote, as per WP:NEXIST. fgnievinski (talk) 18:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how you might read it that way, so let me put it another way. Although an article could be written on this topic, and if such an article was written, it would be sufficiently notable to be retained, at present, it is essentially a mere WP:DICDEF. The fact that sources exist that could be used in an article does not mean that dicdefs should be retained, and I don't think WP:NEXIST says otherwise. TJRC (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2021 (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.