Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/POLICE PISTOLCRAFT

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. Cirt (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POLICE PISTOLCRAFT

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

Non-notable book. Looks pretty spammy. Very similar to New Paradigm of Police Firearms Training, which is also up for AfD. Only one reference can be called a reliable source (Police Marksman); others are either WP articles or not otherwise reliable sources. Originally PRODded, removed by original author twice. All of this author's work has been related to these two articles. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. Pcap ping 09:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC) (see below)[reply]

I occassionally assist the author and owner of the title Police Pistolcraft with the website used to provide information about the book and make it available to those who wish to purchase it. I understand your ceoncerns about it being SPAMMY. The book and the information it provides, however, I feel are deserving of being noted and included in Wikipedia. There is coverage of "The Modern Technique of the Pistol" in Wikipedia, and "The New Paradigm Police Firearms Training Program" was created to provide a counter-balance to this program. I also contend that while Conti's work in the private sector is always kept separate from his work as a member of the state police, the official state police website does note both his contribution and the use of the "New Paradigm" training program. Link provided here:

[1]

As a final note, Mr. Conti asked me to just go ahead and remove the entries after being told they were being contested. I tried to do so but obviously used the wrong process. I would like to see these two articles remain and Conti has no problem with that if you allow them to. I would also like to continue to contribute to Wikipedia for I believe I can do so for other topics as well. Regards, H. Taylor —Preceding unsigned comment added by TaylorTime (talk • contribs) 02:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your remarks. We appreciate your honesty and explanation. Unfortunately, the promotional nature of these article make it likely that both will be deleted. Be advised that this is not passing judgment on the subject itself, its qualities or usefulness, but merely its notability and the use of the article as a promotional vehicle. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The page is spammy... WP:SOFIXIT. It shouldn't be deleted, as the book meets the general notability guidelines by having significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources - see here, here, here, and here. Although the article may need a name change to correctly reflect the title of the book. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can only chime in with Dust. I've moved the page to the proper title since I have no doubt that it will be kept--now let's fix the article. The references are there. Drmies (talk) 04:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thank you! And I decided to start the work on expanding and fixing it myself. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' - Gah! That move may have been premature; Police Pistolcraft and The Officer's Guide to Police Pistolcraft now appear to be two separate books, written by the same author, with different content. I at first assumed they were two editions of the same text but now I'm thinking they're actually quite distinct. Not sure what to do about that from an AfD perspective although I'm happy to keep working on the article in its current location and with its current subject matter. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think it has enough independent notability. There are a massive amount of pistol instruction books out there, and I see very little indication that this one is uniquely notable. Shadowjams (talk) 08:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The few number of sources do not indicate notability. Ryan4314 (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Two book reviews have been added, but only one might qualify as WP:RS officer.com, the other is forum/blog post without a byline [2]. The editorial policy of officer.com is unclear as well (no "about us" link on their page that I can find, only how you can advertise with them). They also take user-submitted news stories. This could well be one or be an advertorial. Pcap ping 17:38, 12 February 2010 (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.