Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prison consultant

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prison consultant

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

I'm listing this on behalf of 209.211.131.181 (talk · contribs) who has made the following nomination. Although I don't view problem users as a reason to delete an article, I happen to agree that the topic is of unclear notability, most of the content being in the form of 'formerly imprisoned commentators'. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This form of consulting definitely exists; however, it's of unclear notability, since most of the real coverage is related to one person, Bernard Madoff, hiring a prison consultant - a fact which can be covered adequately in Madoff's article. The other sources in the article, from reliable sources, are slim "subject exists" articles at best.

While the preceding might not be a reason for deletion on its own, this article has a history of much larger problems. I have removed a lengthy "Practitioners" section from the article, but the article history is fully visible, and I advise anyone considering keeping this article to review it. The section contained, variously, a policy-violating directory of named consultants, promotional content, copyright violations, and violations of the Biographies of Living Persons policy - to wit, claims about consultants' prison experience without acceptable sourcing. Often it was all of that in the same content. This content has been repeatedly removed or redacted over a span of years, and repeatedly readded by a stream of single-purpose accounts who are probably undertaking undisclosed editing. The content of that currently-removed section is unacceptable, but history shows that it will be readded yet again in the future, festering until someone else removes it yet again and the cycle continues.

The best option is to get rid of the article that attracts this bad editing. Material about Madoff can be merged to the Madoff article, and any other content able to be rescued could be added to Incarceration in the United States if that is desirable. The article itself should be deleted. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:12, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see the subject is notable enough. The content needs editing, though. Zezen (talk) 00:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep You are required to have an account to nominate articles for deletion as some understanding of the process is required - see WP:BEFORE. We don't delete articles because they have some problems - see WP:IMPERFECT. And we don't delete articles when we plan to use the content else where - see WP:MAD. The existing sources such as the NYT clearly demonstrate notability and there are plenty more out there such as Good Time. AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 09:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly this is an erroneous nomination as already noted by Andrew. In addition as already said, we don't delete articles because they have some issues. And when the article is questioned on grounds of notability, there are plenty of coverage in reliable sources which demonstrate notability. Jim Carter 05:22, 20 December 2015 (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.