Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AN/ARC-27


 * 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 09:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

AN/ARC-27

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No evidence of WP:GNG in the article. BEFORE is not helpful. (there are some mentions in passing, but they just confirm the use of the device, I can't find anyt indication of its significance - claims that's it is an important part of technological or military history, etc.). This piece of equipment exists (existed) but WP:NOTACATALOGUE of minor equipment parts. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Technology,  and United States of America. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  09:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, there is some coverage in primary sources, which would probably be seen as reliable enough to be used to expand the article.    There is also some secondary coverage.

SailingInABathTub 🛁 15:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  11:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Right, but primary sources are weak when it comes to estabilishing notability. If all we have are military manuals and such, well... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * How would you assess the two secondary sources? SailingInABathTub 🛁 20:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete: A piece of military technology having military manuals that reference it is: 1) not significant coverage, 2) is original research/primary sourcing, 3) not independent from the subject. Delete. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * How would you assess the two secondary sources? SailingInABathTub <b style="padding:5px;background:#3366cc;color:white">🛁</b> 20:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Trivial/routine coverage that doesn't confer notability. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:15, 14 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. I also cannot find any significant coverage in secondary sources. I can't access the newspaper article given by SailingInABathTub, but only one secondary source isn't enough. (The House committee report counts a primary source IMO, as it was produced by the U.S. government). Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:11, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete/merge as per nomination. Merging would be preferable if a suitable target could be found, which unfortunately I have been unable to do so far. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:00, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.