Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor gun

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. - Mailer Diablo 03:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doctor gun

Doctor gun (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

This seems to be an extremely uncommon phrase. I can find no google result that is not derived from WP. There's a reference on the talk page to a use in a discussion forum. That seems to be it. Extremely rare slang, doesn't seem up to WP standards. Wehwalt 19:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - No sources (so fails WP:V) and a google search provides 1200 results and nothing relevant. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Probable neologism, definite regional interest, and failure of WP:V. --Dennisthe2 21:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Topic is too specialized for inclusion in a general purpose encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. It is a slang term that is easily verifiable as it is widely used in significant parts of the the firearms community in the US, especially among the blogging part of the firearms community, but which hasn't become notable outside this rather narrow use. Topic thus currently fails the general notability criteria for WP. Yaf 04:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC) Strong keep. It is a common term on many gun mailing lists that are not simply of regional interest. Is Wikipedia only a free rendition of a semi-commercial encyclopedia, or should it be more powerful than this, capturing a wider, more pithy range of expressions, argot, and jargon, in addition to capturing more widely spread slang terminologies? If we are only duplicating the Encyclopedia Britannica, or wish to censure the content of Wikipedia, then clearly doctor gun doesn't belong in Wikipedia. On the other hand, if we are capturing the admittedly more fringe elements of society, with their rich argot, then there is value in capturing "doctor gun" as well. We have an opportunity to be much more powerful than commercial encyclopedias, if we so choose. Wikipedia is also not supposed to be censured. As for citing a google or yahoo search, as google and yahoo routinely censure many topics dealing with firearms, using such a search is often not an accurate indication of usage of many firearm terms. However, if one does a blog search, one can see there are moderately common usages of the term. Unfortunately, none of them can be cited here because their URLs automagically trigger the blacklisted spam filter and are auto-blocked on Wikipedia. Yaf 03:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Note that Yaf originated the article and did a majority of the edits.--Wehwalt 12:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Yaf, I do appreciate the correction in the regional bit, but my !vote still stands. I encourage you to change our minds, but keep in mind that there must be notability that reaches outside of the focus (firearms, in this case), and verifiability per the terms on that link. Semi important: it shouldn't read like a dictionary entry, insightful (and well written) though it may be. --Dennisthe2 04:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Article is completely unverified and the search for sources doesn't look good. Also, Yaf, if you think this is worth keeping then by all means, please provide relevant sources that prove this. All articles must show notability and be verifiable, this topic doesn't seem to do either. This is not a place to discuss whether or not these policies are good ones. --The Way 06:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: As blogs are not considered a viable source and are blocked on WP from being inserted even in comments such as here, verifiability is not possible to prove for citing common usage in firearms blogs due to their URLs being considered blacklisted and hence blocked by the edit verification protections in place on WP. This topic is not verifiable by the current rules enforced on WP. (This is not an advocacy for changing or keeping these rules, incidentally.) Yaf 04:39, 18 January 2007 (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.