Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gun Arm
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 speedily deleted as CSD G4. 'Sup, arm cannon. Same form, same issues, same result. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Gun Arm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Unreferenced and stubby, consisting mostly of examples of fictional characters with gun arms. I don't think this is necessary or encyclopedic, and the fictional characters can have a mention of it on their own pages. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep "Unreferenced and stubby" SO ADD CONTENT TO THE ARTICLE YOURSELF. Per policyWP:PRESERVE "Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing, try to (examples)", Wikipedia:Notability "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." Wikipedia:Deletion "When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page...If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion" WP:INTROTODELETE & WP:POTENTIAL "Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved." Nominators sole contribution to this article was the AfD. Did the nominator attempt to discuss the article on the talk page first, no. Did the nominator attempt to find any references, no. Did the nominator attempt to improve the article, no. Ikip (talk) 07:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as currently stands. Wikipedia is a not a list of loosely associated topics. The rest appears to be original research. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:47, 22 February 2009 (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.