Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contempt of cop

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. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 22:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Contempt of cop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

After reading this policy page, I don't think this article should remain:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary

This article doesn't do anything beyond defining a single bit of jargon.

I also think the article in general is low quality, and do not see how to fix it because it just doesn't belong as an encyclopedia entry.

I looked at the first few references, and they are aren't anything beyond "usage examples" of the sort you'd see in a dictionary.

There are somewhat related and proper articles about free speech rights, laws obstructing police activity, disorderly conduct, etc. But "contempt of cop" is just a slang term, in general used by people with low opinions of police or who want to convey they think a particular police officer was abusive or overreacted. I think it is like having an article called "rent a cop" which is just a derogatory jargon term for security guard. Declanscottp (talk) 23:13, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Declanscottp (talk) 23:13, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To put it another way, "contempt of cop" is a quick way of saying "a police officer abused their authority by arresting/beating someone for expressing a negative view about them." Declanscottp (talk) 01:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Schazjmd (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Schazjmd (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article discusses a concept that has significant coverage in multiple academic sources. Google Scholar returns a number of papers that discuss the concept: [1]; [2]; [3]; [4]; [5]. Google Books finds multiple sources as well: [6]; [7]; [8]; [9]; [10]; [11]; [12]; [13]; [14]. The "terminology" portion of the article is less than 20% of the entire prose. It is no more a mere dictionary entry than Blue wall of silence or Driving while black are. Schazjmd (talk) 15:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as creator. The article does not discuss the term in the manner of a dictionary; it discusses the phenomenon of police misconduct that the term describes, and it does so in substantial detail well beyond what one would find in a dictionary. Sandstein 14:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, a notable concept as per Schazjmd and news hits, which include: [15], [16], [17], [18], and similar. DICDEF refers to articles that are solely or mainly dictionary definitions, which is not the case here. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:BEFORE. It needs cleanup, but is not WP:TNT-worthy. Bearian (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• keep – Per WP:GNG and WP:BEFORE.BabbaQ (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2020 (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.