- 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. (non-admin closure) sst✈ (conjugate) 13:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- List of bombs ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No coherent classification; mixing types of bombs, individual bombs, and ingredients. The list of different weights is particularly bizarre and dates to 2009. I made an attempt to clean it up but reverted those changes as I'm not even sure what a "bomb" is anymore. Looking at the talk page comment from over six years ago, it seems like there's little chance of improvement here. Qzd ( talk) 06:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:TNT. A list could be created, but this definitely isn't it. Yikes! Herbicide, atomic and logic bombs all lumped together? Why not throw in Howard the Duck too? Clarityfiend ( talk) 09:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep It is our policy that pages may be imperfect and WP:TNT is not policy. For a demonstration that the topic passes WP:LISTN, see British standard bombs in the Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II. Andrew D. ( talk) 12:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- That list has a much narrower scope than just "bombs". This article suffers inherently from WP:OVERCAT. Rather deletion, perhaps it should redirect to Lists of weapons (which incidentally does not include this list). For example, List of cars redirects to a more reasonable list of automobile articles. Qzd ( talk) 00:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Reluctant keep: I can envision a list of "bombs", defined as "exploding weapon", as being notable, sourced and generally within the scope of WP:SAL. It would actually be a list of the types of bombs rather than the bombs themselves, though (unlike List of nuclear weapons which can aim at exhaustivity).
- It would be a nightmare to maintain, and it is quite far from the current article, but that means standard editorial process and talk page discussion, not deletion. WP:TNT is only an essay, and I would apply it only to case where the article to be created is on a different subject despite sharing the same title (say, if the current articles was a list of occurences of a football move). Tigraan ( talk) 16:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Weak keep It needs a lot of work, but if done properly could be quite encyclopedic and useful reference article, but poor quality as it stands. Aoziwe ( talk) 13:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. Pretty useless as it is. Best approach might be to move to List of explosive devices and limit to entries that fit that description. At present it's just a list of bombs, explosive materials, and things with 'bomb' in the name, which is not coherent enough for a list. -- Michig ( talk) 08:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. (non-admin closure) sst✈ (conjugate) 13:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- List of bombs ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No coherent classification; mixing types of bombs, individual bombs, and ingredients. The list of different weights is particularly bizarre and dates to 2009. I made an attempt to clean it up but reverted those changes as I'm not even sure what a "bomb" is anymore. Looking at the talk page comment from over six years ago, it seems like there's little chance of improvement here. Qzd ( talk) 06:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:TNT. A list could be created, but this definitely isn't it. Yikes! Herbicide, atomic and logic bombs all lumped together? Why not throw in Howard the Duck too? Clarityfiend ( talk) 09:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep It is our policy that pages may be imperfect and WP:TNT is not policy. For a demonstration that the topic passes WP:LISTN, see British standard bombs in the Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II. Andrew D. ( talk) 12:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- That list has a much narrower scope than just "bombs". This article suffers inherently from WP:OVERCAT. Rather deletion, perhaps it should redirect to Lists of weapons (which incidentally does not include this list). For example, List of cars redirects to a more reasonable list of automobile articles. Qzd ( talk) 00:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Reluctant keep: I can envision a list of "bombs", defined as "exploding weapon", as being notable, sourced and generally within the scope of WP:SAL. It would actually be a list of the types of bombs rather than the bombs themselves, though (unlike List of nuclear weapons which can aim at exhaustivity).
- It would be a nightmare to maintain, and it is quite far from the current article, but that means standard editorial process and talk page discussion, not deletion. WP:TNT is only an essay, and I would apply it only to case where the article to be created is on a different subject despite sharing the same title (say, if the current articles was a list of occurences of a football move). Tigraan ( talk) 16:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Weak keep It needs a lot of work, but if done properly could be quite encyclopedic and useful reference article, but poor quality as it stands. Aoziwe ( talk) 13:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. Pretty useless as it is. Best approach might be to move to List of explosive devices and limit to entries that fit that description. At present it's just a list of bombs, explosive materials, and things with 'bomb' in the name, which is not coherent enough for a list. -- Michig ( talk) 08:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- 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.