Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Book theft from libraries

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 speedy keep. WP:SNOW withdrawn by nominator with strong keep consensus. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 16:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Book theft from libraries

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

Seriously? Do we really need articles so specific that they go right down to a particular type of theft? Theft is theft. This is not really needed in my opinion, but doesn't appear to fall under CSD for anything. So, I'll leave it here for you. Humblesnore (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC) Withdrawn - please close. Humblesnore (talk) 13:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I met a woman once who'd studied at Oxford, and talked about being searched on the way out of the Bodleian Library every day to make sure she hadn't cut out any pages from books. She said that in some cases a single page could sell for thousands. So, I think it's possible that there's a noteworthy article to be had here. — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 20:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Any potential there to merge it into Theft as a subsection? Humblesnore (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a WP:FORK from Book store shoplifting Roodog2k (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's now renamed Library theft, which remains a major problem. It's even generated headlines, as demonstrated by the incidents I added.- Gilliam (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to understand. It's Theft. Regardless of whether it's from a library, a shop, or HM The Queen, it's still theft - it's so insignificant on its own that it doesn't require an individual article. It could safely be merged into Theft or deleted. Humblesnore (talk) 22:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm surprised the topic doesn't seem to be in Wikipedia already. Plenty of sources such as Using the Internet to Report Book and Manuscript Thefts and Guardian article from a quick Google search. The problems of libraries are distinctive enough that this article should stand alone from the general Theft - as do all the various articles listed there as "See also" (Art theft, Laptop theft etc). Libraries are not insignificant! PamD 22:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This is a major issue.[1][2] "Typically, libraries lose between 5 and 10 % of their collection annually to theft and mutilation." Library theft should be renamed Theft from libraries (nobody's trying to heist an entire library AFAIK). Clarityfiend (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Of course it is a form of theft, Humblesnore, but other forms of theft such as Shoplifting, Embezzlement and Robbery appropriately have articles. The case of Stephen Blumberg shows that much of it is caused by a severe psychological disorder, a blend of Bibliomania and Kleptomania. This is an encyclopedia topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - because the non-retail nature of the product makes it unique and the coverage of the subject in particular makes it notable, I think. It's obviously a recognised institutional problem which has been the catalyst for a number of initiatives/ideas/studies aimed at curbing this particular crime. Graffiti is a form of vandalism and robbery is a form of theft. But I think there's a place for all of those and for this article too. Stalwart111 07:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of media coverage.[3][4][5] --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:46, 4 April 2013 (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.