Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crime in Alabama

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 Any further discussion about merging individual articles can take place elsewhere. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crime in Alabama

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This will be a group AfD. We have a "Crime in..." article for each of the US states except New Hampshire and Maine. The Crime in Alabama article is typical of all but a few of the states. Statistics from 2008 and 2014, and whether or not capital punishment is applied. Nothing that can't be merged into the main article about the respective state. If these articles aren't going to be updated and maintained, then there's no sense in keeping most of them. Will update this page to include all the others. Home Lander (talk) 01:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of the articles. These are generally the worst of the lot, though even the others could use a lot of updating. Home Lander (talk) 01:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This related template shows all the articles, not just the ones in the list above:

Home Lander (talk) 02:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is no assertion that these topics are not notable. There is complaint they have not been developed. So tag them, and give notices at state-level wikiprojects. I especially object to ripping out a structure in every state set up for good reason perhaps, perhaps well used in other states, in an AFD just titled about Alabama, that crime editors and state editors will not notice. Note this is just some states...could the examples of the better states be encouraged. Perhaps if they have been tagged for a year, try again. Is this using AFD to try to force cleanup? --Doncram (talk) 03:06, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nomination suggests merging stuff into state articles. Note no actual deletion should take place...at worst there could be mergers/redirects. This does not seem like an effort to improve coverage of these topics in Wikipedia. --Doncram (talk) 03:09, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - no desire for deletion is actually stated in nom, AfD is not the place for pure merge requests. Beyond that , state-level crime would certainly seem to be notable, and a failure to be kept up to date is not grounds for deletion. I can't go citing specific policy beyond that before specific grounds for deletion are actually given. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per other !voters and because it may not be appropriate to merge the contents of these articles to the state articles. (Does every state article need to mention whether the state has capital punishment? unclear at best.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Per Nosebagbear and other voters who said keep. 344917661X (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. The proposer suggests merging. One has to ask why they don't just do that. Or at least make a talk page proposal. Laziness comes to mind as an answer. SpinningSpark 16:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These are redundant stubs with nothing even worth merging that isn't already elsewhere. Home Lander, I'll endorse a merge if you're going to open that discussion elsewhere though but it's not clear what content there is to do so. Most are short enough you could WP:BOLDly just do it yourself; there's no inherent reason WP needs an article for each one. They could surely redirect to Crime in the United States, which itself links to List of U.S. states by homicide rate and other relevant content. Reywas92^Talk 16:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Do not confuse stub status with non-notability. No reason given to delete and it can certainly be shown that notability of each topic has been achieved per WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A U.S. state is large enough for crime to be notable, and AFD is not cleanup. Smartyllama (talk) 00:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is WP:NODEADLINE and there is significant coverage of crime levels in individual US states. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 15:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Crime in Alaska, Crime in Oklahoma and Crime in Virginia and Merge the rest. The situation in the AfDd articles sharply differs from stubs of stand-alone subjects. Articles at hand should be viewed as subsidiaries of Crime in the United States and in this particular case often its topical "mains". Each subsidiary article needs to have sufficient information to justify its existence. There is no question of WP:N or WP:NOT. If somebody cares enough these articles can be revisited. In the meantime, when opening a zillion articles rehashing the same information, typically the subsidiary articles fall behind and offer a poor user experience. Or the parent articles might – this is equally bad. The main question here is how to organize information right and represent the best interests of the user. gidonb (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or maybe merge the substubs, but expansion would be better. As someone mentioned above, the stub status does not indicate a lack of notability. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ADMIN SNOW query - I realise there is a delete !vote, but we seem to have reached the overwhelming point where all we are getting now are pile-on !votes. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:24, 2 July 2018 (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.

v t e Crime in the United States by state
States	Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming
Federal district	Washington, D.C.
Territories	American Samoa Guam Northern Mariana Islands Puerto Rico U.S. Virgin Islands