Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/.33 Nosler


 * 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 redirect to Nosler. And merge whatever may be considered appropriate from history.  Sandstein  13:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

.33 Nosler

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Methinks we should merge and redirect to Nosler. See WP:PRODUCT, in particular the "explosive space modulator" example. Tigraan Click here to contact me 15:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Leaning keep Why should we treat this one differently than the 500+ articles of Category:Pistol and rifle cartridges? I think the reader is best-served if we're systematic because it increases his chances of finding the article he's looking for. Pichpich (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * On the latter point, if a redirect is kept, it will pop up in search results. On the first point, see WP:OSE, unless you can point me to some form of consensus that individual round formats are notable (or notable provided they meet some criterion X). Tigraan Click here to contact me 16:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The point is that I value consistency. This is not an OSE issue as nobody wants to delete the content of those 500+ articles. (And by the way, an AfD in the present case is odd since you're not advocating for the deletion of the article.) Pichpich (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Pipchpich It is important to keep this article separate from the Company page as it needs to be linked to in articles such as List of rifle cartridges and Table of handgun and rifle cartridges Each cartridge provides unique information to a particular user, based on what type of Chamberings and Reloading that is performed.Jfarrester


 * Keep I totally concur with Pichpich on this. There are plenty of pages on wildcat rounds, many of which aren't super-notable, but I think that individual articles are useful so that the differences between the cartridges and their derivatives can be explained in greater detail. As long as there is a good amount of verifiable information regarding a round, I think it merits an individual page. R. A. S immons Talk 19:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Neutral I see the points on both sides. It seems that there may not be enough reliable mention of the caliber for it to be a standalone article, but I'm not really an expert on these things. I'll leave it up to those with more investment, I suppose. R. A. S immons Talk 15:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Consistency should exist over the whole of Wikipedia, not just in a tiny niche area. We don't have articles on small variations of manufactured items in other areas, so why should we do so for pistol and rifle cartridges? I've had a look at a random selection of articles in the category linked above and they all seem to be just as unnotable as this subject, so the real doubt is about why those other articles should exist rather than why this one shouldn't. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, the "keeps" above appear to be a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, also WP:ITSUSEFUL doesn't cut it, this does not meet WP:GNG, a gsearch does not bring up useable sources, just company/blog/PR pages may be a case of WP:TOOSOON, ok to redirect until/if it becomes notable. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per my comment above. I didn't give a delete opinion earlier because I wanted to give people a few days to come up with a reason for keeping, but that hasn't happened. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:56, 14 November 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.