Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GBU-37

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.

[edit] GBU-37

The result of the debate was keep Ben Aveling 11:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Only content is an external link, and Wikipedia is not a link repository. Deltabeignet 06:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC) Keep based on new additions. ````

• Delete per nominator. Keep per nominator. Edwardian 06:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's spam. Or maybe redirect to Precision-guided munition.Regards, Ben Aveling 07:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Not interesting. We should set the bar for inclusion higher than this. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination GhostGirl 12:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep now has content - reason for this nomination no longer applicable GhostGirl 09:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as spam. Ifnord 18:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• No longer spam, I agree. But I'm with Ben Aveling - it's really not notable. I believe that Wikipedia should have lots of esoterica and minutae, but will ever anyone type in GBU-37? Vote changed to simple delete. Ifnord 04:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as a list (of one!) of links. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 22:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC) Delete or merge; little content, probably will never be even a stub. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 12:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and speedy if possible. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 23:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• OK< now has neutral enough ocntent to nullify the original criticism. But if expanded to its fullest extent this would still be smaller than many stubs! Merge into a decent-sized article on US munitions or something. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 21:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Definetely not spam. Real weapon. DialUp 06:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I can confirm that the article now has content. But it still doesn't say anything about why this weapon is notable. Do we list every weapons delivery system known to mankind? Regards, Ben Aveling 07:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as rewritten; Wikipedia has lots of articles on weapons systems. MCB 07:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd still like to see a reason why this one is notable. That said, currently the vote is 5:3 in favour of delete, and most of those votes predate the adding of content to the page. I don't think that represents a consensus to delete. Does anyone object to pulling the flag? Regards, Ben Aveling 08:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep after added content--Bkwillwm 20:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this is an encyclopedia JG of Borg 22:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe there is consensus to keep this article. I've let Ifnord know that I'm making this recommendation but I don't feel there is any need to wait for a response. Even if he agrees with me, delete is clearly a minority view and the page should be untagged.

Regards, Ben Aveling 01:39, 10 November 2005 (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.