Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Submachine Gun vs Combat Shotgun

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Submachine Gun vs Combat Shotgun

This article appears to be a clear cut case of original research as it is one editor's personal views. The article's topic is also unencyclopedic and probably violates WP:NOTGUIDE. Nick-D (talk) 00:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 00:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, read before posting - Like to remind everyone here that yes, this is a 15 year old, but he's also new to Wikipedia. As a reminder, don't bite the newbies. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 14:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete debate; take this to your local bar. Not an encyclopedic topic. OR. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons noted above. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this

Hey guys. I'm only 15 and decided to do this for fun, though I do think it's a worthy topic. I have no idea whatsoever how to do things on Wikipedia, and I certainly don't know how to write a decent article. Could someone please help me out with this one? Or if it's too helpless then I suppose it should be deleted. Thanks!!!! HenryShooter (talk) 00:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Henry, I'd encourage you to take a look at your talk page and follow the links there. On there are some excellent links on how to work Wikipedia. I have to admit, this is a hell of a way to welcome a new editor, but the rules as given...well, check the guidelines, and you shall be enlightened. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. More of an essay, but still original research. Inclined to userfy content for the author. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed !vote, reverting to just plain ol' userfy. Good points here, and if the article has resources, the creator of the article can fix it and resubmit it at a later time. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not the place for essays. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if individuals want to post things like this, there are free blogging sites available, which Wikipedia is not. Nyttend (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. I don't see anything that could be merged anywhere, and userfying is not appropiriate, as it serves no purpose even in userspace. Suggest snowballing this. Firestorm ^Talk 05:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete oh heavens no. No. No. Annnnd no. JBsupreme (talk) 06:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ack. And to think it was written by a 15 year old....Makes you sad for the world.--Him and a dog 11:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything that can be salvaged I agree that this article is more of an essay and thus probably should be deleted. Perhaps, however, there is something from it that could be salvaged and put into Close Quarters Battle. In my opinion the article is reasonably well written (I have certainly seen worse on wiki) and the contributor needs to be encouraged to stay as he seems like he might be able to make valuable contributions in the future. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing can be salvaged, nothing is cited. Full stop. JBsupreme (talk) 07:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR and WP:ESSAY. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I told the author of this article that I thought it could survive this {{afd}} with some better references, and an excision of about two thirds of the material. I did some web searches, and he is correct. There is a debate within law enforcement and special forces literature as to the relative merits of combat shotguns and submachine guns. I added a couple of references to the article. I would remind those voicing an opinion here that opinions in an {{afd}} are supposed to be based on the merits of the topic, not on the current representation. Geo Swan (talk) 05:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge if possible. This is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. If the article creator wants to contribute to this topic usefully, then add sourced material to Close Quarters Battle. Fences and windows (talk) 01:39, 29 May 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.