Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merlin Trebuchet

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merlin Trebuchet

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

One article in The Washington Post and an article in an anyone-can-edit Wiki do not suggest notability. The Washington Post does human interest stories about some random person doing something unusual, and most of these persons and doings are not notable. Anomalocaris (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete promotional and not-notable. Reverting the speedy tag was bad judgement. Jytdog (talk) 02:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting the speedy tag was bad judgement Uh, A7 doesn't apply to trebuchets... Adam9007 (talk) 02:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)~[reply]

Agreed; speedy deletions don't apply to things as a type of catapult. Anomalocaris was 100% in the wrong, dude nominated it for deletion, and than 20 minutes later decided to nominate it for speedy deletion. This is just vandalism. ElThomas (talk) 04:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any excuse in a storm to keep letting WP get filled with dreck. Jytdog (talk) 02:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CB. More specifically, a WP: BEFORE indicates a dearth of persistent, in-depth coverage: [1], [2]. ~~As for the 'A7 does not apply to this type of subject'; I assumed this to be some kind of joke. Is there some kind of inherent notability in lobbing pumpkins around with medieval siege engines?~~ On edit, I see what you are trying to say- that it doesn't apply to objects, only people, events, companies etc, which is true. But the point was expressed poorly enough to raise an eyebrow. I suggest greater precision in edit summaries, so the reasoning is in plain sight. Apologies for the confusion. Incidentally, a merge with / redirect to trebuchet is within the bounds of possibility I suppose: but it would need a helluva lot of coverage in reliable sources into the future. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 08:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article does not have a substantial amount of information, lacks credible sources, and is not notable. Bmbaker88 (talk) 12:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

ElThomas: I nominated it for speedy deletion; another editor removed the deletion template, which that editor had a right to do; I nominated it for deletion using this process, which I had a right to do. Anyone is free to express their belief that the article should be kept and to present evidence in support the notability of the topic, and I encourage editors to do so. None of this is vandalism; it's how things are supposed to work.
Bmbaker88: I think the article does have at least one credible source, but I agree with you, of course, that it is not notable. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and probably should have tried PROD first, which doesn't seem to have happened. Single thing built by a single individual, for a single competition, which got the "local firefighter rescues kitten from tree" coverage. TimothyJosephWood 13:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Query Lack experience with WP:CSD#a11 (adopted while I was away). Would it apply here?Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I think not- it makes a sort-of credible claim of significance (if pumpkin chucking applies, of course!) and I think A11 is more for things imagined as important by the creator. Others' mileage may vary though- it's an interesting question. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only one article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW - fails WP:GNG by a mile. One news source is not good enough. Bearian (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2017 (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.