Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Shark City Scandal

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Shark City Scandal

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

extremely small set of incidents, nowhere near a notable scandal, infecting an election cycle. the incident is NOT referred to by this name. some concern about BLP violations in a marginally notable/nonnotable article. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
Location (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: Article is sole contribution to date by a new editor, see contributions of StickNMove here. I haven't looked for whether there is validity, i.e. public naming of this scandal by this name. I haven't checked what
wp:SOAPBOX says, either. But Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, should not be the venue for new coining of a scandal name. --do ncr am 20:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems to not yet come close to
WP:EVENT, lacking coverage with geographic scope, lasting effects, or evidence of persistent coverage. I'm a resident of the city, and there may be something I need to get up at arms as a voter in the city about it, but I don't see that this yet meets our notability criterion. Moreover, if we were to ever have an article about this, it needs a new name, "2014 blah blah blah controversy" or the like, there is no reliable sourcing for this name at all, and as a result, the article comes off as trying to sell a viewpoint. --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:10, 10 November 2014 (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.