Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/.50-140 Sharps

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. -- Cirt (talk) 16:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

.50-140 Sharps

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

Cartridge has not been used in any notable application and since obsolete is not likely to become notable in the future, majority of article is semantically copied from .50-90 Sharps (prior to my edit), almost all data is unsourced, some statements seem contradictory. Nutarama (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I favor a low bar for cartridges. Since we do have sources that have written about this cartridge, I think we could salvage this. I'd say pretty much any non-wildcat cartridge type will probably be notable. Gigs (talk) 03:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am all for keeping any widely used cartridges, but this one sounds like a non-notable niche round. Fails WP:N due to lack of significant coverage demonstrated in multiple reliable and independent sources. Edison (talk) 03:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I wish that WP would restrict itself to articles written for the general reader, that's not the reality here. If people want to know about this cartridge then why not have an article? Clearly it has been covered in relable sources. Also the article includes some history, not just the statisics on it. And I hate it when others use this argument but here goes: We are not paper. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:07, 18 March 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.