Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criminal Spin


 * 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.  Sandstein  09:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Criminal Spin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

First three works under "Further reading" (article has no direct citations) are unpublished MA theses (failing WP:V, the fourth is an unpublished PhD thesis (same), the fifth links to an article that gives no indication of using this term in its text (and in all likelihood does not), a the sixth, to which the reader also has no direct access, appears to be a reference to a book chapter in which the author invents this term (making it a WP:NEOLOGISM in a WP:PRIMARY SOURCE). Article requires references (in-line citations will make these much easier to trace) to secondary published sources in order to verify its notability.  KDS 4444  Talk  20:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per nominator's rational. JMHamo (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  17:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep There seem to be many academic publications referencing the term. Many are by the inventor (but several in different journals, with co-authors), but the theory seems to be mentionned and discussed at least a little by others: and  for example. user:penbat seems to be doing a good job of adding these to the article as inline citations. Happy Squirrel (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. A WP:NEOLOGISM that appears to have WP:BOMBARDMENT going on to pretend that it's notable. I'm also getting a very WP:ESSAY feeling from this article, and it has the distinct scent of WP:SYNTH. There may be a notable topic here, but the subject would be best served by application of WP:TNT. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:35, 3 January 2016 (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.