Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mobility triangles


 * 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. Thanks goes to Mark viking for his work on the article. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Mobility triangles

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This page was originally created at AFC (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mobility Triangles). The author copied it to article space before the submission had a chance to be reviewed. The submission has since been declined for WP:NOTESSAY. The current article seems to differ from the declined AfC only in terms of minor copyedits. —Noiratsi (talk) 10:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have my own reservations against the article and I am more inclined towards a delete for the nonce. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 11:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in thelist of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I believe that "Mobility triangle" is a notable concept in criminology and that an acceptable Wikipedia article can be written on this topic. The current article does not meet our minimum standards, as it is more of a personal essay than an encyclopedia article. So  Delete  unless the article is totally rewritten during this process.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  03:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I rewrote and stubified the article so that it is cited, with four references, of which at least three are peer reviewed (unsure about the Burgess ref). It is no longer essay like, and my complete ignorance of the subject assures that there is nothing original in there. Hopefully it provides a nucleus for an article on this topic. The multiple references indicate to me that the subject is notable and the WP:NOTESSAY problem is gone, which suggests that this article could be kept. In rewriting, I think the original essay has a lot of good information; the content just needs to be summarized, properly cited, and made more encyclopedic in tone. --Mark viking (talk) 04:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep due to the excellent work done by Mark viking to transform what was poor quality work into the beginnings of an actual encyclopedia article.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  05:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously. There is no shortage of sources, and indeed the original article provided plenty. Being essaylike is not a good reason for deletion: it's a reason for rewriting. Well done Mark Viking; there is scope for incorporating more of the sources into a fuller article. GA, FA, who knows. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, after commendable efforts of Mark viking. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 10:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per fantastic work by Mark viking, suggest a snow close now. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Article could obviously be expanded, and could use more secondary sources, but rewrite has clearly fixed major problems. - Shudde  talk 10:44, 7 February 2013 (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.