Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firearm errors in media
- 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. --Coredesat 06:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Firearm errors in media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
WP:NOT#IINFO and extreme WP:OR and tons of bad trivia Bulldog123 03:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete This article is garbage, totally unreferenced and is beyond fixing. --Chuck Sirloin 04:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as OR. Nice article, maybe the author can find a website for it somewhere. CitiCat ♫ 04:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Very weak keep I think that it has some ok info and can be salvaged, but I won't raise a fuss if it got the axe. Movie trivia is a plague on firearms article and I loath it. But if there must be something, this article is marginally acceptable I guess. —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 05:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition to vote above, I'll add that I oppose merging in the strongest possible way. —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 03:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in some form. This article is interesting in that it provides information an average reader may be lead to assume (because of movies, etc.) but is otherwise false. I'd prefer it to be a little more referenced, and possibly merged into the subjects it refers to; a possibility I would consider is to move it to a project space and leave it there until someone decides to perform such a multiple merge. Tizio 11:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: See WP:INTERESTING
- Please s/interesting/encyclopedic/g in my comment. That is: "if a person argues for why an article is WP:INTERESTING, and the arguments for interesting are also reasonable arguments for encyclopedic, it is wrong to summarily dismiss that argument just because WP:INTERESTING is a section in this essay". Tizio 14:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: See WP:INTERESTING
- Transwiki to WikiBooks, if that project will accept. --Dhartung | Talk 12:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge each bullet-point into the article about that firearm. Citations will have to be found of course. If this is unfeasible, then delete. —gorgan_almighty 14:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: It's a good, accurate essay. But it is also quite unsourced and mostly WP:OR, and as such doesn't qualify to be a Wikipedia article. RGTraynor 14:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per RGTraynor. Also, Wikipedia is not a provider of public service information regardless of how interesting, important or useful it may be. MartinDK 15:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unencyclopedic WP:OR. Eusebeus 16:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original research. VanTucky (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This one could probably be fixed with some additional sources (it's got 8 so far). I wouldn't be surprised if articles of this type show up from time to time in gun magazines. There are a lot of misconceptions about guns and, worse, about gun safety, created almost entirely by Hollywood. This is an excellent article about the differences between a reality few are familiar with, and well-known fantasy that is taught on film. Ignorance, in this case, is not bliss. Mandsford 17:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - agree with gorgan almighty above --Philip Laurence 01:48, 5 August 2007 (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.