Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Book store shoplifting (2nd nomination)


 * 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) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Book store shoplifting
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Concern expressed at earlier AfD four years ago applies as much today if not more: reeks of original research and synthesis, draws very heavily on a handful of non-encyclopedic articles, and generally has no place here. No sign of potential for improvement. EEng 03:02, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge to Shoplifting the little bit that is useful here to indicate they're commonly stolen and a mention of what the stores are doing to prevent it, leaving a redirect as well as an alternative to deletion. I agree, this really has a lot of problems, with the sources pretty much being local news events or opinion columns (WP:NOTNEWS).  The compilation of information doesn't really articulate a theme here, either, appearing more like an indiscriminate collection of lists of events on the topic.  I don't think it has enough weight to warrant a full article, but a mention in the shoplifting article of the reliable content, I think, is warranted.   Red Phoenix  talk  04:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. EEng 05:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm changing my !vote because I'm convinced that XOR'easter's suggestion below has some merit to it. I don't disagree this is a poorly-worded article with a lot of issues; it was why I suggested a merge to begin with.  That being said, renaming the article and refactoring it (noting I would go further than just the lead as suggested) is actually a solid idea.  I could support an article on book theft with this as the base to that.  But, for all that to happen, we'll have to have that discussion after this AFD is settled first.   Red Phoenix  talk  23:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 05:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 05:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - Nothing has changed that would make me change my stance from 2015. Still keep per WP:GNG. BabbaQ (talk) 08:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination just repeats the previous nomination and so is vexatious per WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." It is easy to find more substantial sources on the topic including Beatrix Potter-pinching and Žižekian swipes: the strange world of book thefts and Stealing Books in Eighteenth-Century London.  See WP:ATD; WP:BEFORE; WP:IMPERFECT; WP:NOTCLEANUP; WP:PRESERVE, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 08:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, as WP:NOTTEMPORARY, stand by what I said in previous afd, a tad disappointed that article has not developed more of a world view ("well coola, what's stopping you?":)) but this is no reason to delete. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - meets WP:GNG per its WP:RS. XavierItzm (talk) 12:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Neither a keep nor a merge would be terrible outcomes, I think. Shoplifting seems too narrow a term; it would be easier to argue for the wiki-notability of book theft more generally. For example, not all the conduct described in The Man Who Loved Books Too Much would necessarily be called "shoplifting", strictly speaking. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge into a new article called Book theft (see Library theft, the Canadian Medical Association Journal article "People who steal books", etc.) and a little bit into Shoplifting. IMO, the topic is a bit too narrow for a standalone article. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I could support this proposed merger as well, though this would take some time to assemble correctly.  Red Phoenix  talk  22:23, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think even just changing the title to Book theft and refactoring the lead a bit would help a lot. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep oddball topic, but the sourcing on the page establishes that it is a coherent topic, and it passes WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's weird, but from my experience as a bookseller at Barnes and Noble, it's a unique and serious problem. Bearian (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.