Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drop weapon

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 but clean up. Davewild (talk) 09:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Drop weapon

Drop weapon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Article is journalistic in nature, soap-box-ish, and according to the author on the article's talk page may contain original research. —Noah 07:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, POV essay, violates several policies, no real references. Author needs to consider whether Wikipedia is the place to contribute this sort of thing. --Dhartung | Talk 08:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 09:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep – At first glance, I agreed with the nominator concerning original research and the essay like way the article is written. However, upon researching the phrase, I found, more than a couple, extremely reliable – secondary and third party - verifiable news sources covering this topic specifically, as shown here [1]. . I would tag piece for clean-up and rewrite but not for deletion. Thanks. Shoessss |  Chat  12:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete. We could use an article on the subject, but I'm not sure the title is right, and the text certainly isn't. Note that I've reformatted the article (it looked really weird) so it can have a fair viewing here. Sensiblekid (talk) 13:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If we "could use an article on the subject" why do you want to delete it! Jellogirl (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Because this isn't an article on the subject. Sensiblekid (talk) 14:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It could become one. Jellogirl (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I believe the name is OK, with the possible change to “Drop Weapon”. However, you are right; the whole piece needs to be rewritten – with a full explanation of the term in more detail with the cites. (There certainly is enough of them). With an additional section regarding the controversy surrounding the term. I’ll start working on it tomorrow and see if I (Hopefully, that will be We) can improve enough to a keep status. Shoessss |  Chat  14:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help. Will follow your lead.Jellogirl (talk) 14:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. As per nom. Additionally, sure looks like a WP:NEO violation as well.BWH76 (talk) 14:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Real and notable phenomenon. Needs work, not deletion.Jellogirl (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep an article on this topic is appropriate, but not this one. JJL (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep Surprisingly, there is no article about the trial of Sergeant Evan Vela, which brought this issue to the attention of the media. The article, at present, doesn't meet basic standards; however, it looks like there are several editors who would like to do some rewriting to bring it up to code, and hopefully with a better title. The title refers to a practice of dropping an "enemy" weapon (such as an AK-47) in the open, then shooting the poor fool who picks it up. Mandsford (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Article does not need deletion, but does need expansion and a lot of work! Canyouhearmenow 17:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep -This needs to be torn down and rebuilt, but this is a wide-spread concept and certainly worthy of inclusion. Mstuczynski (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, not an encyclopedic article by any standards. Please don't confuse "encyclopedia" with "news source". No prejudice against recreation, though, under more appropriate name, and with appropriate citations. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 03:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• keep and cleanup/rewrite per Mandsford. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2008 (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.