Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-police sentiment
- 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Citing (talk) 19:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Anti-police sentiment
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Anti-police sentiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article fails WP:GNG. Contains multiple inaccuracies and hoaxes. The subject of the article is not notable as it is a mismatch of multiple different subjects mixed together, and reads more like a propaganda or attack page then an informative or an encyclopedic article Mysticair667537 (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly Talk to my owner:Online 16:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the - talk 17:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the - talk 17:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)]
- Keep (rewrite?)/don't bite the newbies. The main author of the article says they have written this article as part of a course on underrepresented topics in the social sciences. The writing is more like an academic than an encyclopedia article, but that can be fixed, and anti-police sentiment is a very real thing (a search on Google Scholar returns a lot of articles). It doesn't read at all like an attack page or propaganda. Inaccuracies can be fixed, and I did not see any obvious hoaxes.Citing (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Keep the article isn't the best - but it doesn't have problems with - talk 17:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)]
- Withdrawn The article could be fixed and rewritten, however, the article at its current state is a mess, however, I do believe the article still has potential. Mysticair667537 (talk) 18:21, 19 August 2019 (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.