Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Humane law enforcement


 * 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   no consensus. — Jake   Wartenberg  20:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Humane law enforcement

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete, this is more like an essay then an encycloepedida article. I do not see an assertion of notability Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is also no surces backing this up so possibly a case of original research.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - I added sources and expanded the article, giving more information. MOOOOOPS (talk) 13:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * COmment, One source 3 times? Really?Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yea, really. It backs up the information in the article, and is informative. MOOOOOPS (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: the article would be a lot more credible if it had references (other than WiseGeek) demonstrating that this is an established term/concept. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - can this be re-named to or merged with Animal control? Bearian (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We could merge the Animal Control page into the humane law enforcement page, then create a section for animal control. MOOOOOPS (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 15:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. As is, the article does not appear to meet WP:V, however, "humane law enforcement" get enough hits to suggest it is notable. Location (talk) 01:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doomed for the foreseeable future to be “original synthesis”. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 06:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Absurd nomination on the basis of the article's current content, with no regard for the notability of the subject. 20,400 hits for the title, as shown above. 240 in Books, for crying out loud, so obviously not a neologism either. No rationale presented that should not be presented on the talk page. Synthesis is by definition impossible, as both articles use the term, therefore there cannot even be a hypothetical synthesis of the two, let alone one which is presented or reasoned. A waste of everyone's time. Go do something useful and let this article grow. Anarchangel (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * 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.