Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parapolice

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. Sources found that nudge the consensus toward keeping the article. Joyous! | Talk 03:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Parapolice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This is not a notable concept. The article appears to primarily promote the work of one academic, George S. Rigakos (it was created by an editor who mostly just adds Rigakos content to Wikipedia). There is nothing to indicate it has broader significance or is meaningful in common parlance or academia. Thenightaway (talk) 10:35, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:48, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment seems to be in use in secondary press-sources (they seem to be mostly pro-human rights press sources), mostly around what when on in Nicaragua. This one might have legs. Oaktree b (talk) 15:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there anything to indicate that this is commonly used and specific term which cannot simply be explained within the context of articles such as Paramilitary and Police? The concept is so redundant that I'm not sure it's even worthy of a mention in those articles, let alone have its standalone article. As far as I can tell, one academic coined the term (every day, countless someones somewheres coin new terms and try to make them a thing) and it has subsequently been occasionally used instead of the more common term "paramilitary". To what extent anyone uses the term, I suspect citogenesis plays a role in it, as this Wikipedia page (which was most likely created by the academic) makes it appear as if this concept is a thing. Thenightaway (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I suppose that even if the term were widely used, it's Wiktionary material at best. I noticed that the page suddenly has a Basque version, but it is ultra-short, has no sources, and, judging from its text, is a short translation from the English. --Suitskvarts (talk) 08:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - I added a Further reading section with an academic source I found (convenience linkProQuest 504598950) which does provide some historical context around the term and its use over time. For example, "The word 'parapolice' was first deployed in legislation that attempted to define penalties for neighbourhood watch group members who falsely identified as police officers (University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 1972) and was thus specifically portrayed as illicit. More recently, sociologists and criminologists such as Fleming et al. (2006), Fleury-Steiner and Wiles (2003), Forst (2000), McLeod (2002), Rigakos (1999a, 1999b, 2000, 2002), Singh (2005) and Skolnick and Fyfe (1993) and have made use of the expression in ways that do not treat it as an inherently illegal practice." While I think the subject is notable, I lean 'weak keep because the article likely needs to be rewritten with a broader view. Pinging participants for their consideration: @Thenightaway:, @Oaktree b:, @Suitskvarts:. S0091 (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:NOTDICT, this is more of a word and a defonition then a notable thing that deserves a article.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 06:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per S0091. Seems to pass WP:GNG, although needs re-writing to clarify the actual usage of the word. Certainly agree that little-used concepts can seem like dictionary definitions, but I think the sourcing suggests enough meat to support an article. Suriname0 (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  edit: added an additional ref to the article as well. There seems to be substantial (well-cited, multi-field) academic usage of this term. Suriname0 (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - there are lots of additional academic references if one includes the term para-police in the search; 1 and 2 and 3. We are here assessing the notability of the page subject and not making judgements based on the standard of the page today. It's undoubtedly a term that is used many times in the relevant scholarly literature. JMWt (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2022 (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.