Talk:Crime Classification Manual

message: I have removed what I consider to be nonencyclopedic content. A link to individual articles on individual crimes is not appropriate--this is not an article about the classification of crimes, but about this particular book.   DGG (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: nonencyclopedic content

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 13:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: Why is this article notable?  Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a US FBI standard issue reference manual. Npmay (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Then there should be a citation to a reliable source saying so.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you looked for one? Npmay (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The burden of proof would be on the person making this assertion.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was an assertion made in the article. This is an encyclopedia, not a court of law. About 2,030 results for "FBI's standard-issue Crime Classification Manual" verbatim feel free to look through those or not. Please do not contact me on my talk page again. Thank you and good day! Npmay (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: An airy wave in the direction of a Google search, and a clear disinclination to discuss the matter sensibly, do not constitute compelling arguments.  A couple of solid references to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject go a lot further than mere assertions and dismissive rhetoric.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: I have removed a claim of the number of citations of this book, which was sourced to a Google Scholar search.  Google Scholar is a search engine, not a reliable source and even if the citations were counted and checked this would still only constitute original research.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You are mistaken, Google Scholar is a reliable secondary source for such information. I intend to replace the deleted statement and citation, and ask that you take the matter up with WP:RSN, leaving me out of it. Thank you and good day. Npmay (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is Google Scholar a reliable source?.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: ... where consensus appears to be that Google Scholar is not a reliable source and this claim is undue.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of citations 

message: I've been looking for some reliable sources that talk about this book.  Here are some that might be helpful.
*   "culmination of much of the work undertaken by the original members of the FBI Violent Crimes Unit" "the CCM does not appear to have been universally embraced"
*   "very few investigators use the typologies of the CCM"
* 
* 
Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: I have removed a citation to this as an unacceptable source for two reasons.  Firstly, it is a shopping website, which does not appear to have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.  Secondly, and more importantly, the page in question quotes from a book Criminology Publications by Books LLC, which is a reprint of this very article.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unacceptable source