Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conventional 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. No support for deletion. Owen× ☎ 13:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conventional weapon

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:DICDEF and WP:GNG. Perhaps it could be redirected to and explained in weapon? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Law, Military, and Technology. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this is a sharply-distinct class of weapons, the subject of the treaties named in the article. As such the article is correctly about things, not the term used to name those things, as is proper for an encyclopedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A WP:DICDEF does not have to be about a term. All it means is that the article is essentially a dictionary entry, as this one is when any unsourced original research is ignored. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. Intothat darkness 12:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a well-established term. This is something of a dictionary definition, but not enough to be deleted for that reason. A merge might be possible, but I don't think weapon would be the target. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...An article can certainly be deleted for being a dictionary definition. That's why WP:DICDEF exists. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Despite the sheer number of keep !votes, their arguments are not so clearly based on policy or guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A basic google books and scholar search shows WP:SIGCOV. It's a widely used term with legal implications both domestically and internationally. I can't imagine any serious WP:BEFORE was done, because I am seeing some obvious avenues for article development in google scholar and google books as it relates to international law and armaments agreements in relation to conventional weapons. The possibilities for expanding this are there, and we are not under any time limit to do so.4meter4 (talk) 06:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As User:Doczilla stated, please demonstrate this SIGCOV instead of just claiming it is there. The last 3 Keep !voters said the same thing and this is just repeating the point that has already been called insufficient without any evidence that the AfD was poorly conducted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Google Scholar alone generates over 5000 hits, with journals ranging from Journal of Cold War Studies to Defence Science Journal and a number of scholarly monographs as well. Google Books returns another 19000, although the relevance of some of those is likely lower. Given the role the distinction between conventional and non-conventional weapons (nuclear and chemical in particular) played in arms control discussions and treaties in the 1970s and 1980s (to give just one example) it should be patently obvious this is a significant topic. Intothat darkness 13:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A widely used term with many hits does not mean it is article worthy. WP:GHITS is relevant here. While "nuclear weapon" is obviously notable, "conventional weapon" encompasses a wide and vague umbrella of weapons that is duplicated by other articles. The arms treaties in which it is used of course can have their own page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per all above. BD2412 T 16:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, another agreement with all of the above. Donner60 (talk) 08:34, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:DICDEF: unlike a dictionary definition, where you would find discussion of the word's usage and history, this encyclopedic article instead discusses the scope, history, mechanics, and status of the concept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:45, 9 December 2024 (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.