Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XM-736 8-inch projectile

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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

XM736 8-inch projectile[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to have the notability of a standalone article, may be better off merged with what little contents it has Prisencolin (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 January 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Weapons of mass destruction (in the classical NBC/CBR sense) are subjects that are intensely covered in many sources, and come as close to "inherently notable" as nearly anything does. A quick search shows multiple potential sources - certainly enough to establish notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this seems convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 23:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although many of the additional available sources are somewhat repetitious (of each other) and technical (ballistic data), there are adequate sources for WP:GNG. FeatherPluma (talk) 05:52, 2 February 2016 (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.