Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Special Operations Combatives Program

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. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Special Operations Combatives Program

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

No evidence of notability for this private training program which claims to do contract training for the US military. Nothing relevant in Google news, or anything other than their own You tube pages in Google.

I previously speedy deleted a longer version of this as promotional. DGG ( talk ) 19:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced article with no evidence of notability, nor has any been found. (I notice that a previous version of this article was deleted as a copyright violation, probably of the page formerly at [1] but now showing no text.) AllyD (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 20 November 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, Yunshui 雲‍水 11:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete I found one book reference and a reference in this catalogue from the Special Warfare Center at Fort Bragg. The problem for this article is that both references imply that SOCP is an in-house training segment for army personnel taught by other army personnel; there's no indication that Thompson has anything to do with it. Every other hit seems to trace back to him and his school. SO I would call it promotional and unsourceable as it stands. Mangoe (talk) 13:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found no references that weren't self published or non-notable. Furthermore, the article's POV might be debated. It leans toward being promotional. Vacation^nine 13:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Intothat darkness 19:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Written in the style of an advertisement "our achievements" Tim bates (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Puff Piece --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:12, 26 November 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.