Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of criminology articles covered by the Crime Classification Manual


 * 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. v/r - TP 21:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Index of criminology articles covered by the Crime Classification Manual

 * – ( View AfD View log )

There is no evidence that there are any external sources that discuss the selection of topics in this book. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash;SW&mdash; converse 23:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The book itself is the proper source for this list. Npmay (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Clearly any book is a reliable source for its own contents. But we do not have an article on the contents of every book in existence.  Is there an independent source that refers to the contents of this particular book, which might establish notability?  Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nothing to suggest that this book's organizational structure is independently notable, nor that we are well-served by duplicating in here.  Additionally, such a list appears to be one in which creative selection criteria were employed by the book's authors, and may therefore present copyright issues per User:Moonriddengirl/Copyright in lists. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * keep - per cusop dingles very good arguments.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that compliment, but I ought to point out that I am arguing for delete, not keep! Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Strange as your reasoning ase basis for keeping the article.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see, your apparent compliment was sarcastic. It's not easy to tell the tone of voice at the end of this long piece of wire.  My argument is that there is no independent reliable source addressing this subject, namely the list of contents of this particular book.  Of course the book itself addresses the topic, but this is hardly independent.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Redundant to Category:Criminology, which it apparently intends to duplicate with no added value. No indication why this book's selection is particularly important or instructive.  Sandstein   07:51, 7 April 2012 (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.