Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public endangerment


 * 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. John254 17:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Public endangerment

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

Delete no indication where this is a crime or what constitutes it or whether, when all is said and done, it's a notable crime. I will not assume that just because someone somewhere outlaws something that the something becomes notable for WP - are we ready for Spitting on the sidewalk, Eating your left forearm, Taking scissors on board an aircraft, Drinking in a dry town, Wearing a head scarf to school, Failing to wear a head scarf to school and other things that are crimes somewhere or another, or even everywhere... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, now backed up with sources.  weburiedoursecrets  inthegarden  19:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Not much here, but I would think more could be written on this topic (e.g. applicable laws; controversies over those laws, etc.) JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per above This is more than a "spitting on the sidewalk." It's an entire legal concept. I'm surprised there was not already an article. 203 Google news hits including a Forbes article about a US Supreme Court Case as well as 59 Google Scholar hits and 57 Google book hits  is not just "significant media coverage," it's potential sourcing for a much improved article.  Dloh  cierekim  21:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above it has potential for a much improved article. Plenty of coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. I'm also surprised there was no article already! Nk.sheridan     Talk  22:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think that substantive criminal offenses defined by statutes are per se notable, although a case could be made that merging articles on similar offenses might be a good idea, since the terminology varies according to the caprice of legislators. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, but it is in dire need of expansion. If nothing is done to the article in the near future, I think it should be relisted for AfD.  BWH76 (talk) 06:45, 9 May 2008 (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.