Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Fair Cop

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 no consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Fair Cop

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

An article about a self-published account of how a UK police officer has been gravely wronged by the public and by the system of justice in the UK. The plot summary speaks for itself (note, I have removed a worst element, but it was minor). Fortunately or unfortunately, Wikipedia does not exist for this sort of account. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Books which are not that significant ie 'chick lit' are included on Wikipedia. Why have they not been nominated for deletion? I am not trying to create an argument - I am just curious. I think that 'A Fair Cop' is significant because it provides a first-person account of one person's experience of the justice system in the United Kingdom. (😺Galaxycat😺 talk 20:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Articles about insignificant books (of any sort, including "chick lit") are, and should be nominated for deletion. If they haven't been, then we just have not got round to them yet, under WP:OTHERSTUFF. I could provide a first-person account of one person's experience of working on projects that require a security clearance, but that would not make me nor my book notable. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't appear to meet any of the five criteria of WP:NBOOKS. Ubelowme _U ^Me 23:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For now at least - meets criteria 1 WP:NBOOKS (Google search) - however, the page does need more work and many more references from reliable sources. Book has been used for Adult Learners' Week so nearly (but not quite) meeting criteria 4 of WP:NBOOKS. I would say give it a reprieve for the time being and give interested editors time to address the pages' failings? Simuliid talk 11:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I can interject here for a second, the amount of Google hits is not indicative of a book's notability or the lack thereof. I'm still researching so I'm not going to make a definite vote at this point in time but I have to say that so far the hits have predominantly been the type that do not show notability. Most are either merchant sites, primary sources, junk hits, and links to various non-reliable and non-usable blogs and websites. I've been looking through the news archives to look for stories, but most of the stories predominantly focus on the assault and arrest of Bunting rather than on the book. When taking that into consideration, I haven't seen enough of a depth of coverage to where I'd say that an article based on Bunting himself and/or the assault should be written at this point in time. It got a smattering of coverage, but not really all that much when you get down to whether it's enough to show that the incident passes WP:GNG. Now what I'm thinking might be a good compromise for the article is that if we can figure out exactly which precinct Bunting was working in at the time of the assault and charges, this would be worth a brief mention in the article for the precinct, with his name and the book's title redirecting there. It looks like it would be the West Yorkshire Police force, but I'd like to be 100% sure. I think there's enough for a smallish paragraph but so far I'm not really certain that there's enough here for an entire article. I'm still searching, but so far that's where I'm leaning. As for criteria #4, you'd have to show that it's widely used in multiple classrooms over a broad stretch and not just something that's used in a handful of classrooms.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to Google was that there are usable references, rather than a indicator of notability. As for criteria #4 I did say "nearly, but not quite". The criteria in WP:NBOOKS are , as it states Rule of thumb, not cast iron, and there are other considerations. My gut feeling is that this work could fit the criteria, if the interested editors want to put the effort in.The page was only started on the 21 August 2012‎. In my opinion many acceptable pages are Flagged Articles for deletion far to hastily, without giving them a chance to grow and develop first. I have have had new pages flagged for deletion less than 60 seconds after creating them. Many first class Wikipedia pages where fairly minimalist for a long while. Yes I agree, as it stands, maybe is should be deleted? My recommendation would be for benefit of the doubt, remove the Flag for now, let the editors address it's shortcomings, then review the situation in a month or two? Simuliid talk 20:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which references? I found many primary sources and various unusable sources, but very few things that could be usable as far as showing notability goes. The only things I discovered were a handful of articles that mentioned the assault, but not really anything specific about the book itself.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The book has not received the necessary significant coverage from independent reliable sources. A search at Google News finds minor coverage in minor publications, with the single exception of an article in the Yorkshire Evening Post. Both the Wikipedia article and the book (and even the book's title) are blatant examples of special pleading, telling one side of the story - what I call "ain't it awful" reporting. The article should be made more neutral if it is kept, but IMO it should not be kept because it fails Wikipedia:Notability (books). --MelanieN (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wade, Stephen (22 December 2009), "INJUSTICE EXPOSED--THE CASE OF PC BUNTING.(A Fair Cop)(Book review)", Contemporary Review is an in depth review of the book. There is also a bunch of sources that discuss the case and the book held at the books official site [1]. Not the right place to source them from but enough is provided to make them independently verifiable. There is also more similar sources out there. Something should exist here wether about the book or about the case is another question. Note that the Contemporary Review review states "This book is a product of an initiative inherited by Harper Collins called the Friday Project; they took over this project in April, 2008 and it has to be said that the results are impressive. The aim of the project is to find potential creative writing in blog texts and to work on them, developing them into full-length books. Michael Bunting's story is a very worthy inclusion in this programme" so this is not just a self published book. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[2]] Contemporary Review at Highbeam. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 02:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I fail to see what is notable about a book about Michael Bunting who is not notable enough to have his own article. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an article about a book, not about it's subject. And just because it's a red link does not mean he is not notable (maybe just no one has made made one yet). And it should be noted that Wikipedia is more strict ( or something) when it come to WP:BLP's as any article about Bunting would be than it is about books published by reputable publishers. duffbeerforme (talk)
Keep - meets criteria 1 WP:NBOOKS, also as stated above this is an article about the book and not the subject. If you havent found that out you havent read the article.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:57, 12 October 2012 (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.