Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Book store shoplifting


 * 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) — ☮ JAaron95  Talk  13:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Book store shoplifting

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Despite my profound professional interest in this topic, this still reeks of original research and synthesis, draws very heavily on a handful of non-encyclopedic articles, and generally has no place here. Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  01:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Delete Why there is an entire article dedicated to shoplifting of books baffles me. If this is fair to exist so shall shoplifting of every kind of store. Theres no place for an article like this for the sake of an encyclopedia. NewJibaJabba (talk) 03:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm surprising myself, but yeah, this is a notable topic as shown by stories in the NYT and other major sources. The stories were about the general topic, not just individual cases. Borock (talk) 04:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seeing significant RS coverage, more than sufficient to pass WP:GNG.  See .  North of Eden (talk) 13:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Your point is well taken. But as goofy as this topic may be, it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources.  This is enough to merit an article.  North of Eden (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - covered enough to pass GNG,--BabbaQ (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Easily meets WP:GNG, multiple reliable sources in article, UScentric nature of article could be improved upon (although a quick search does not bring up much from elsewhere). Coolabahapple (talk) 02:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.