Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tactical reload

Tactical reload

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

Not notable, unencyclopaedic HOWTO. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 06:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep, while the current article is in bad shape a tactical reload is a well known concept and discussed in many books on the topic, like [1] [2] [3] or any of the other 98 gbooks hits [4]. The concept therefore meets the WP:GNG and should not be deleted. I would also support a merge to an article like firearm loading techniques (not to be confused with handloading), but none seems to exist. Yoenit (talk) 12:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is more than adequately covered in the sources produced above, I don't see any violation of WP:NOTHOWTO. The reader has to know why and how something is done for the article to make sense. Someone another 17:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a bunch of reliable sources. It still needs more copyediting, but in no way qualifies for deletion. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. —AliveFreeHappy (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it needs a cleanup (tone, second-person narrative), but it's notable and shouldn't be just a how-to guide. bahamut0013^words _deeds 23:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It look like there are many who want to keep it and it look like it is worthwhile topic. Can someone undertake a good re-write of this article? There should be some here who at least did some PPC shooting etc. Or merge it into a tactical shooting entry, might be more appropriate. DeusImperator (talk) 01:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, how about we merge the pages Tactical Reload and Speed reload into one article, such as "firearm loading techniques" as suggested earlier? Mr.M.Smith (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a reasonable idea. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 01:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, sounds swell. bahamut0013^words _deeds 12:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]