Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killing of a police dog laws in the United States

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. SpinningSpark 13:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of a police dog laws in the United States

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

WP:LISTN, unsourced. ansh 666 01:25, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

Lepricavark (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

Lepricavark (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Umm. Do we do this kind of thing - direct reproduction of minor laws, w/o context? I doubt it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,
WP:INDISCRIMINATE. TJRC (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Indiscriminate, non-encyclopedic article. Content uplifted from one single source (and appears to be self published). Ajf773 (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --JumpLike23 (talk) 05:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Cabayi (talk) 06:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even with citations and context (what about federal police dogs? what about an accidental vehicular killing? what about, what about, what about....) this information would be dubious. --Lockley (talk) 05:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with above reasoning. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename List of laws regarding police working dogs, which could easily be sourced and expanded. It's neither indiscriminate (I do not think that word means what you think it means) nor unencyclopedic: The laws that give special legal status to certain animals are of relevance to both law enforcement and animal rights debates, and there's no reason we shouldn't have an article on them, no matter how much this one can stand to be improved. Jclemens (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Ajf773. I disagree about renaming. We could use an article (not a list) about laws regarding police dogs, but there is nothing here that can be used in that future article. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:58, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move move to draftspace this article is not ready for main-space BSOleader (talk) 11:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.