Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethics in public administration

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 delete and redirect to Public sector ethics. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ethics in public administration

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

It doesn't look and read like an encyclopedia article. I think it should be deleted. Kitcher45 (talk) 05:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my searches found links to suggest a better article could be made but I'm not currently seeing it and there's certainly been enough time for better to happen. Notifying 2009 tagger RHaworth. SwisterTwister talk 07:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Public sector ethics which is at least cited. Ethics in public administration contains only one very poor reference, added by an SPA back in September, who also added most of the uncited content in a single edit; the reference appears to be WP:COI to boot. The article was in fact a bit better before that addition, but brief and totally uncited. Given the strong overlap, and the not unreasonable alternative title, a redirect seems the right solution. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Public sector ethics. While the version of the article nominated doesn't look and read encyclopedic and is poorly sourced, it is most definitely not a subject of WP:Original research. A quick search will show hundreds of textbooks available from Amazon. I find the subject WP:Notable because of all this academic coverage of the subject. A Redirect is appropriate since a very-similar, well-sourced, peer-reviewed article already exists. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 18:26, 21 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.