Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Construction equipment theft

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. NW (Talk) 03:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Construction equipment theft

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

I believe the subject of the article may at some point meet the guidelines for notability. At the present time, the article has no reliable sources to verify most of the claims contained. Fails WP:V and WP:RS. It also seems to straddle the line of synthesis and original research. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 07:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Must be deleted.... Nothing importance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.37.22.242 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)—110.37.22.242 (talk •contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete original research, lacks any references to appropriate reliable sources. Yes, perhaps an article could be written, but there's nothing at all here to salvage Chzz ► 21:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep and reviseDelete Nothing here worth salvaging, since it is based on Japan only. I could definitely find hundreds or thousands of news articles about construction equipment theft, such as [1], [2] and [3]. but is it encyclopedic to have separate articles on theft of every kind of thing that exists? Auto theft has specialized law enforcement departments, and special laws. Construction equipment redirects to the odd title Engineering vehicle. (If I work as an engineer, is my car an "engineering vehicle?"). In that article, there could be a section created on their theft. They can be very expensive, and do great damage if sent rambling by a vandal or if used by a thief to break into something. The content here ~~is not really needed for that purpose.~~ can be revised and extended. Sources do exist on the topic: [4], [5], [6], [7]. Edison (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article can't really be kept as is, because the sources do not match the information contained in the article. If Edison is going to volunteer to edit this article in the direction of having even a few properly sourced, reliable statements, I'd be happy to withdraw the nomination... which wasn't based on notability, but rather on being original research and/or synthesis. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 05:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg 02:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does one specific type of theft deserve it's own article? Are we next going to create car stereo theft or go-kart theft next? I'm sure there are many more sources for these than for construction equipment... I think the content of this article is better suited to a sub-section of motor vehicle theft or construction equipment... - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Certainly different kinds of theft create different issues for society, which might deserve treatment in an encyclopedic way. Construction equipment theft might (for example) raise issues of public safety, or it might lead to more costly or inferior construction, or it might feed a black market for parts, or what have you. Demographics and sociology of different types of theft would also be interesting, as would police methods. I think a *lot* of types of theft could deserve an article. Gruntler (talk) 05:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I originally typed in "Delete", thinking this subject would be very difficult to source. But a Google search for "construction equipment" + theft turns up this online bulletin board [8], and this "Builders tell how to fight on-site construction theft", and this [9] and the interesting fact that "Nearly 40 percent of all construction and agricultural equipment theft occurs in just five states, according to a report released today by the National Equipment Register (NER), a database company established to reduce heavy-equipment theft rates and increase recoveries of stolen equipment." [10]. For what it's worth, Lo-Jack (maker of anti-theft products) calls this "a problem that costs construction companies up to $1 billion per year in lost assets" [11] (actually, it appears more reliable sources say the same thing); Google News archives search [12] shows this source from the UK [13]; and this [14]. If sourcing exists to create a good article on a subject that otherwise meets Wikipedia policies and guidelines, it's not up to us to refuse it space in the encyclopedia. Apparently there's a lot of information out there from reliable sources, so let's keep the page with an improvement tag until somebody adds to it. JohnWBarber (talk) 04:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Currently the article needs a ton of work, but "if the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." Gruntler (talk) 05:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a ton of work is an understatement. The entire article needs to be re-written from the ground up. I doubt a single statement could be kept as is. Keeping it, without a volunteer to fix it, would be basically keeping a placeholder for the concept, because no one seems to want to fix it. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 06:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

would be basically keeping a placeholder for the concept, because no one seems to want to fix it. We call them "stubs". I'll put in 10 minutes of work into it. JohnWBarber (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs have the same guidelines as regular articles. Wikipedia does not allow introduction of improperly sourced material, regardless of the notability of the subject. Removing all of the improperly sourced statements would have left a blank article. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 00:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Term seems to come up at doj, only one matches exactly but many of these seem relevant, http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&q=site%3Ausdoj.gov+%22construction+equipment%22+theft&aq=&aqi=&aq=f&aqi=&oq=&fp=7960896364bf1ed8 I haven't read the article but presumably it could be stubbed if really bad and leave some search links like this on talk page for a while. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Related recent AFD to consider: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Laptop_theft --Milowent (talk) 14:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Authors above found plenty of sources and subject is clearly notable. --Cyclopia (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All right. I bit the bullet and added to the article. (Despite a few similarities, this is very different from motor vehicle theft in several ways, by the way.) This is actually kind of interesting and could be expanded quite a bit. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep article needs a lot of improvement and citations, but is notable UltraMagnus (talk) 16:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Nomination - Due to some hard work at completely re-writing the article by Gruntler and JohnWBarber, I'm now willing to withdraw the nomination. In response to some comments on the board, however, I'd like to remind everyone that this article wasn't nominated for notability issues, as I've mentioned several times. The article was nominated for being original research which was not sourced properly. Regards, and any admin may now close. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 00:47, 26 September 2009 (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.