Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victimless crime (political philosophy)


 * 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 01:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Victimless crime (political philosophy)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article consists entirely of original research, and past attempts to find sources have failed. Topic itself is subjective, depending on how one defines victimless, preventing reliable sources from ever being found. Ultiam 20:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment this appears to be the main article on the topic. How'd that happen? AnteaterZot 20:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't understand Ultiam's logic; by that argument thousands of Wikipedia articles would be impossible to write. There are thousands of potential sources on Google Scholar alone, suggesting that secondary sources have already defined the parameters of discussion sufficiently to satisfy academic rigor. Obviously there is not going to be one universal definition, but that's why we have a policy for handling it. Sometimes a crime is implicitly victimless but contains a moral hazard, making "society" (or "us all") the alleged victim. We just have to attribute such categorizations, not decide whether they're right. Certainly the general topic of victimless crime is of encyclopedic notability. --Dhartung | Talk 02:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * keep - that's the very point of wiki kernitou talk 07:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, almost a speedy keep. Strip away the original research - there must be some sources for this. Notable concept.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 11:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I would assume the concept of victimless crime must have been discussed both by political philosophers and by members of the legal profession, and there must be authoritative sources offering (no doubt disputed) opinions about how it should be defined, whether the concept even makes sense and so on. However this is not reflected at all in the current article, which is a very well written but unsourced essay. Is it better to have a poor article, which is what it is (based on Wikipedia criteria - it's a good read), or nothing at all? I suggest it's better to have the article and hope it improves.Hobson 20:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It isn't now, but as recently as two or three years ago this would have been a contender for featured article. Obviously we need to improve referencing but baby, bathwater, etc. --Dhartung | Talk 21:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, or if necesssary, merge with Public order crime. Useful search term that college students would use, useful per WP:OUTCOMES, but it's such a poor article, it would be better if sourced. Bearian 00:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep it is an important and valid topic. Coccyx Bloccyx 00:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Although it needs work, a poorly written, in-progress article about a valid topic is better than none at all. 65.42.26.190 (talk) 13:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC) (hooray for ip sigs)


 * 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.