Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flashboard

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 redirect to Flash spotting. And merge what is of use. Sandstein 21:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flashboard

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

The article has no references to support a claim of significance for a military device. CatcherStorm ^talk 14:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a reference you young ignorant whippersnappers who dont understand lots of stuff was invented before computers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engineman (talk • contribs)

Weak Keep In addition to the offline ref added per the above unsigned comment, I found another source (added to the article). I don't doubt that this was a actual military device, and probably significant in the development of locating enemy artillery. The article is certainly poorly written and needs more sources and much improvement. MB 03:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MB - The source you added, "The Ranger Journal of the Defence Surveryors' Association", is a deadlink. I've been unable to find a link to fix it. If you have a chance would fix it? Thanks! CBS527^Talk 17:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From the "The Ranger Journal of the Defence Surveryors' Association" mentioned above, I learned the flashboard was invented by Lt. Henry Harold Hemmings. Searching on him led me to "How the War Was Won: Command and Technology in the British Army on the Western Front: 1917-1918" which I think is another source - but the google book snippet view doesn't display the relevant pages. MB 04:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are so arrogant. This may be as you call it a weak article, but I thought the whole point of wikipedia is that subsequent people gradually improve writing. You have to start somewhere. The article is a perfectly clear description of an interesting and unknown to many people, device. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engineman (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - pretty clearly this is/was a real thing, and it looks to me like in depth coverage exists, I agree that the article could use a lot of cleanup though. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Engineman: I suggest you read WP:SIGN and WP:CIV, considering your above comments, which frankly do not really help your case. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although it's tempting to consider a merge with Flash spotting. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep it appears depth can be added. -- Iazyges Consermonor [[Special:Contributions/Iazyges|<span style="color:#838996"
Delete - Article fails basic WP:GNG as all articles require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I am at a loss as to where in depth coverage exists as searches of all Google engines, Highbeam, NYT, Bing and dictionaries are providing hits for Dam flashboards or a flashboard network and none for this "Flashboard". A search of Henry Harold Hemming, a Canadian Reconnaissance Officer, did turn up that he devised a flash spotting system referred to as "Flash Buzzer System" (see World War I Battlefield Artillery Tactics.) although I can find no instances where it is referred to as "flashboard". I suspect that this is the device that the article is referring to since the first source listed in article was co-authored by Mr. Hemmings. If that is the case, I would have no objection to a redirect to Flash spotting. CBS527^Talk 18:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve, rather than delete. Comfr (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect to flash spotting. Comfr (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect to flash spotting. Perhaps not enough in-depth coverage for its own article, but certainly merits a mention in that article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:18, 16 February 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.