Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armament of the Iowa-class battleship


 * 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 no consensus. There is consensus against deletion. There is no consensus between merge and keep, but that can be explored further in a talk page merger proposal.  Sandstein  10:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Armament of the Iowa-class battleship

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Was originally created to consolidate numerous weapon and weapon systems for the Iowa-class of battleships, but has degraded over the years and is now arguably bloated and probably housing some original research. Listing here first for community input on its fate, with the next step (if kept) being WP:FAR. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ADDENDUM Since a lot of people seem to be having trouble with this, lemme clarify the AFD criteria:
 * WP:NOT (not an indiscriminate collection of information),
 * WP:CRUFT (highly detailed information of a very specific caliber),
 * WP:OR(sources may be lacking for some information, information could be based on first hand accounts of what worked best an not manuals),
 * WP:N (we have articles for all systems covered in this article that may serve as a better venue for the existing information, in which case consolidating it all here could be seen as unnecessary and/or a waste of electrons when they are notable enough to stand on their own).
 * Independent of these issues are those related to WP:WIAFA, however AFD is not for discussing FA/FAR/FARC related matters, those can be addressed elsewhere when and if the community decides the article should be kept. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep As this is a Featured Article the nomination is either frivolous contrary to WP:POINT or a misunderstanding of AfD per WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep The nominator says "probably housing some original research". Probably?  If you don't even know it has a problem, don't waste everyone's time trying to delete it.  If its "bloated" then that's a case for normal editing.  I'm sure they check for that when they promote an article to "featured article" status.   D r e a m Focus  15:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per WP:SNOWBALL. You need a hell of a reason to delete a featured quality article, and “arguably bloated and probably housing some original research” absolutely doesn’t cut it. There are a million less drastic venues you could take this issue. Dronebogus (talk) 15:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I’ll admit even though the nom was a jackass about it I probably jumped the gun. I’m changing my vote to neutral. Dronebogus (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I feel I should point out that the nominator,, also originally brought the article to FAC in the first place, and has commented on the degraded quality of it here. So the nomination should be taken in good faith. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:ATD-E - any issues with the article can be fixed through ordinary editing and discussion. An FAR would seem a good place to do that.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * WAS ORIGINALLY CREATED TO CONSOLIDATE NUMEROUS WEAPON AND WEAPON SYSTEMS OF THE IOWA-CLASS OF BATTLESHIPS. Do you people read NONE of these nomination statements? If not then let me preschool this for you all so it'll be slightly more comprehensible to your apparently star struck eyes:
 * Do we still need a consolidated list? If so, then yes, keep, if not then should we delete.
 * If it's bloated and we trim, do we still think there'd be anything here worth independently expanding on? If not, then should it be deleted or converted to a list and moved to reflect that?
 * On the matter of original research, do we feel that the article could have any existing OR trimmed and still retain its usefulness, or on OR grounds do we feel TNT is justified here?
 * Should this be considered a subset of FANCRUFT? Essentially you've got a bunch of extraordinarily detailed information on obsolete weaponry and weaponry systems, most of which cold probably be better presented either in the individual articles or frankly ona different wiki/wikia set altogather where people can obsess over the extraordinarily detailed and intricate inner workings of the system(s) in question.
 * Is this at or above the threshold for notability? The battleships certainly are, but are the individual components? Most radar and sonar systems have no articles on site, and most of the existing articles discuss in the currently in use systems such as AEGIS - and even then in a more nuance way. If tyhe systems are no longer operable, do they still satisfy notability requirements to remain on site?
 * Is this now more akin to a how to guide? If so, should it be trimmed to bring it into compliance or not, and if so in what ways?
 * Don't gimme this "snow keep" bullshit when its overwhelming clear none of you even bothered to read the damn thing, nor have you put any meaningful thought into your keep votes. Try again, gentlemen, and this time try not to embarrass yourselves by getting giddy over the bronze star, shall we? TomStar81 (Talk) 16:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You did not give a valid reason for deletion for us to respond to. Use the talk page to discuss how to edit things, don't try to delete the entire article without a valid reason.  I don't see it as akin to a how to guide. This is a valid spin-off article, it giving more information about key components to the battleship, that wouldn't fit in the main article.   D r e a m Focus  16:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Because I trust people to be competent enough to read an article, its deletion nomination, and then articulate a reply. In your case you do now make a keep argument that is actually in line with my thinking, however with articles for the 16-inch/50-caliber Mark 7 gun (primary guns), 5-inch/38-caliber gun (secondary guns), Bofors 40 mm gun (primary AA-gun), Oerlikon 20 mm cannon (secondary AA-Gun), Tomahawk (missile) (Circa 180-1992), Harpoon (missile) (circa 180-1992), and Phalanx CIWS (primary AA-gun c.1980-1992), all of which do a much better job of presenting the information and with more accurate, less bloated, and better cited for the system-as-a-whole instead of used-on-the-ship approach as done here back in the mid 2000s I am leaning towards a position that deleting the article and instead linking to the individual sections works better for both the ships and the encyclopedia as a whole. dedicated pages for the individual systems allow for a better presentation of the weaponry systems including background information that would be out of place here on the summary page, which brings me back to the afd point as viewed through your point: do we even need this, or are we better served by outsourcing to the individual weapon systems to their respective page(s)? TomStar81 (Talk) 17:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


 * For once in my life I’m actually standing with Dream Focus. Don’t treat us like idiots when your initial reasoning was so poor as to necessitate a procedural snow close. Treating other editors like garbage is completely uncalled for. Dronebogus (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:CIR, it is my duty to inform you that without a valid reason based on existing policy and/or guideline related grounds your vote counts for nothing because we seek consensus and all you've said is you like the star. Liking the bronze star isn't a justifiable enough reason to keep an article (see WP:ILIKEIT for more information on this particular argument), therefore in the absence of any meaningful grounds to retain this article (list?) I am afraid that I must request that you !vote be disqualified from the discussion's finally outcome. I am, however, willing to extend to you an WP:AGF argument that, at some point over the next several days, you may yet figure out what it is you feel should be cited as proof that this article meets some sort of threshold to retain its position on wikipedia, at which point I will withdraw this comment and let your grounded-in-policy-or-guideline-keep stand. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m inclined not to just because you’re being a condescending jerk who clearly thinks I’m a moron. Dronebogus (talk) 17:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well its your choice: prove me wrong, or have your "keep" disqualified. I can work with either, though personally I'd prefer the former sine it makes for better consensus. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It’s not about winning. I couldn’t care less about what happens as long as it’s based on reasonable consensus. However you seemingly want to “win” and rub it in my face to “prove” I’m an idiot, which is WP:UNCIVIL in the extreme. Dronebogus (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does seem that since this started consensus has emerged that I'm being a dick/asshole/jerk. Unfortunately, I can not argue that, as there is not only consensus for it but also proof of it all over this afd page (and I note only the afd page, i've kept it here specifically to avoid bumping up against WP:NPA, which I'm at this point DANGEROUSLY close to doing despite my best efforts). If you feel that the case before you presents enough evidence for reprimand your welcome to file your report at WP:ANI, you are after all an editor and should feel welcome on the site. As an admin, my MO is Be Thou For the People, failing to live up to that gets people slapped or in admin cases disqualified from wielding the tools under the worst circumstances. Do what you feel you need to do here and/or there, just remember that between the anger and the zingers there are good points being made here - points both of us could stand to listen to. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge Much of this is cited to primary sources like "Naval Ordnance and Gunnery, Volume 1, Naval Ordnance, NAVPERS 10797-A. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Navy, Bureau of Naval Personnel. 1957." so I agree that this unique article is rather overly specific and crufty. I am not enough of an subject expert like the nominator to know what's important here, but this is an unusual level of detail that isn't necessarily encyclopedic beyond what should be consolidated to Iowa-class_battleship. Many of the individual arms were used on many ship types and have their own articles and need not be detailed here when linked. Reywas92Talk 17:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * See Reywas92's merge and reason? THAT is how you tell people who actually read the article from those who stopped at the star: they who have read the article grasp what's being debated here. Keep that in mind going forward: just because it has a star doesn't mean the afd is malformed, pointy, etc, the nominator may have a good reason for listing it. Always remember to judge on the merits of the nomination, not on the star. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You should've started a merge discussion then, not a discussion for deletion. Kindly close this and do things properly.   D r e a m Focus  17:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Eh, let it run, we'll see what the community has to say over the next few days. Hopefully, we can get betting input here than we've had so far. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge per nominator, who is a subject-matter expert and primary author. This can be handled better in the single article on the battleship class, as a significant component of the ships.  Comments like As this is a Featured Article the nomination is either frivolous contrary to WP:POINT or a misunderstanding of AfD per WP:NOTCLEANUP are blatantly false, there is absolutely nothing pointy or misunderstanding here; nominator is a primary contributer. Hog Farm Talk 17:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The nominator is undeniably being highly uncivil though. Dronebogus (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And the first several !votes appear to be actively assuming bad faith. Yes, this could be handled better, but a lot of the comments here appear to have not glanced any further than the star atop the article. Hog Farm Talk 17:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree that they come across as assuming bad faith, at least compared to “let me preschool you” “ ” bold all-capsing, and everything else the nom did to make me, Dream Focus et al. feel like crap. Dronebogus (talk) 17:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd say As this is a Featured Article the nomination is either frivolous contrary to WP:POINT or a misunderstanding of AfD per WP:NOTCLEANUP is clearly an assumption of a frivolous nomination e.i. bad faith. Hog Farm Talk 17:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This is sort of a “mote in your brother’s eye, log in your eye” situation, but in any case it’s irrelevant to the discussion so I’m dropping it. Dronebogus (talk) 17:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Perhaps an AfD should wait until the article is not featured on the main. I am unfamiliar with the featured section - and had to search it to find it, but there is likely WP:NORUSH. I suggest withdraw the nomination until it is not an FA. - that way there is not an big template that readers can follow into the back of the butcher shop and see How the sausage gets made. Lightburst (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Lightburst, that conversation has been made, and it was decided to take it here first. Hog Farm Talk 18:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Concur with Hog Farm. There is absolutely no mandate anywhere on this site that explicitly states that an article must be demoted in order to be deleted. Will you all please stop getting hung up on the star and do you part? Please? Its not asking much to to type keep, delete, merge, and a valid, policy and/or guideline based reason for your !vote, is it? Lets not make mountains out of mole hills here... TomStar81 (Talk) 18:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Understood TomStar81 and Hogfarm. I am late to the party, but I am hung up on the star. It is like a DYK or in the news on the front page with a template tag. If we feature it on the main, we shouldn't have these kind of questions about it. No rush is just an essay, but it is relevant to this discussion. I am merely commenting here. Lightburst (talk) 18:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Featured content  D r e a m Focus  18:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * " Its not asking much to to type ... a valid, policy and/or guideline based reason for your !vote". Ironic you should mention that, as there is not a valid policy/guideline reason in your nomination. It's perfectly legitimate for participants to respond with keep per no valid WP:DELREASON under those circumstances. SpinningSpark 19:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I know, and I get that. The problem though is that such behavior sets a very dangerous precedent by advertising that if you can get an article to FA status it becomes, for all intents and purposes, "immune" from the demands of WP:RS, WP:N, WP:OR, WP:NOT, WP:WIAFA, WP:CRUFT, WP:CREEP, WP:CONSENUS (Consensus can change), etc. If we are to ensure that we police the site fairly and justly according to our policy and guideline pages then we must apply those standards and the changes to those standards to all articles, including those that hold the highest ranking available. This comes back to our not being a paper encyclopedia and to the fact that over time all things change. Its been 14 years since this article got its star and in that time no other ship article has ever had its weaponry and weapon systems consolidated into one page like this, and in the time since the page was created the specific systems covered have had their own individual pages vastly expanded. We have to take all of this into account here to decide the outcome, which means looking beyond the bronze star in the right corner. Consider if you will a crime seen: the usual suspects may be the prime suspects, but if the science tells you they didn't do it then another solution must be found that satisfies the narrative presented by evidence at hand. To quote Sherlock Holmes, "If you eliminate the impossible then whatever remains, however improbable, must be true." In this case, if we subtract the bronze star and the bloat, what remains is selected information either already present in other articles better able to handle the subject matter or information that didn't belong here anyway, in which case the article's purpose on Wikipedia is moot because other articles handle it better. I know it can be hard, but we have to look at this article objectively, not emotionally, otherwise we risk retaining a page that doesn't need to be here. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I see now that this not similar to a DYK or major feature in that it is not front page. So this discussion is less unpalatable. But only slightly. Thanks: I could have had a V8. Lightburst (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. I can see no valid reason in the nom for deletion. If, as the nominator claims, the article has accumulated a lot of cruft, that can be dealt with by normal editing.  At worst, it could be reverted all the way back to when it became a Featured Article.  Merge back into the main article may be an option, but that will still require the work of trimming out the cruft and it will still not be deleted so the page history is retained for attribution.  As the nominator is discovering, AFD is not the best place to resolve such issues.  For the avoidance of doubt, I am not offering an opinion on merge, but what I will say is that I found what I read of the article (I didn't read the whole thing) I found the detail fascinating, and just what I would expect of such an article.  I don't think any of it is unencyclopaedic and I would hate to see that detail lost in a merge. SpinningSpark 19:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair points, although I will note there really isn't any reason why we couldn't salvage what we need from the article's weaponry sections and add those to the articles on the 16-inch/50-caliber Mark 7 gun, 5-inch/38-caliber gun, Bofors 40 mm gun, Oerlikon 20 mm cannon, Tomahawk (missile), Harpoon (missile), and Phalanx CIWS. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * For the record, the first version noted in the history with the bronze star is dated March 30, 2007, at which time the article looked like this. I post this for your consideration and out of respect for your point concerning rolling back the clock, as it were. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comparing those versions make it easy to see the crufty stuff that has been added. The cleaning procedure of the main armament after firing seems pretty over the top for instance. And is it even correct?  I'm pretty sure they didn't spend a whole day cleaning the gun after every time it was fired in a battle situation.  So I agree with the noms complaint, but it is still a WP:FIXABLE problem and thus not grounds for deletion. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 08:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep and FAR. This clearly isn't an FA any more in terms of the criteria, regardless of the star. I mean it contains a pretty fulsome how-to on the loading and operation of the Mk 12 5-in gun, which might even be too much detail for the article on the weapon. It is a ridiculously high level of detail for an article of this type. There are many more significant issues. Far be it for me to insist on bureaucratic procedure, but I think the first step would be to FAR it and if it is delisted then determine its future at that time. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Bringing together information on fire control systems and armament in one article is a good thing to do - the various components of fire control systems and the armament need to work together.  It is appropriate for this article to go into a much greater level of detail than is appropriate for an article on the ship class.  I think the article could be much improved - there is a problem with articles on things like ships that some editors remove information that they cannot understand, or do not understand the significance of. -- Toddy1 (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge This sort of well-written article is what we should strive to have. It clearly meets all required criteria, but can better be contained elsewhere. Buffs (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. For reasons cited above.  I agree with User:Spinningspark and his reasoning.  No reason cited.  The reasoning sounds a lot of WP:I don't like it.  Article is featured for a reason. WP:Not paper so redundancy is no reason delete (or merge).  Perfectly good article. WP:Preserve. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 15:17, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge per Hog Farm. Those berating the nominator here should be ashamed of their behavior, as they clearly haven't read the article or its Talk page to understand that this is a request to gather consensus on what should happen next with this collection of content, not just to nuke it into orbit. -- Laser brain  (talk)  12:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge per Reywas92 and Hog Farm. Mztourist (talk) 04:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge into Iowa-class battleship, we also have independent articles for most of the sub-systems. Cavalryman (talk) 10:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC).
 * Delete. While I agree with the reasoning of Reyway92 and Hog Farm, it's worth noting that the Iowa-class battleship article already has a 1,300-word "Armaments" heading and likely does not require merging; even if we gut the uncited cruft that has grown at this article since its FAC it still stands at over 3,000 words and I can't see all of that being needed at the parent article without being wildly undue in weight. As it stands this feels like an overgrown content fork cited largely to primary sources, which wouldn't pass muster on GNG if it were created today. This is in no way a knock on the nominator's original efforts but unfortunately it's possible to expend good work in poor directions. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 23:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge or Re-direct - to which ever article the imputing editors here, think best. GoodDay (talk) 01:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect for now. Restore afterwards if the problems can be solved, leave it at that if they can't, and merge whatever is deemed suitable from the edit history. Nominator could have just done a bold redirect instead of taking this to AfD, since the issue has already been discussed on the talk page. Avilich (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. The information looks good and well referenced, the only argument for merging would be if there were space in the main article, the main article is already too long, and so per WP:SUMMARY, the correct thing is to spin-off subtopics.  This is a valid sub-topic, the material is detailed and well-referenced, and I see absolutely no-problem with it.  The information is not indiscriminate; it is niche, but so is a lot of things we publish at Wikipedia, per WP:NOTPAPER, I am unconvinced we are better served by removing the information entirely, and per WP:PRESERVE, if we're keeping it the best place to keep it is here, per WP:SUMMARY.  The idea that the article has degraded from a formerly FA-level status also bears no weight, WP:NOTCLEANUP, if the article has degraded, then WP:SOFIXIT and restore it to the state it was when it was good enough to be an actual featured article.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, ?. I see nothing wrong with the page. Things like this are one reason I veer away from deletion discussions. On top of that many long-time editors who post worthwhile analysis and comments on AfD pages are now under what seems like a well-attended and successful simultaneous purging attempt to cancel them from AfD, and that's such a strange and over-the-top thing to encounter within and from such a principled and worthy project as Wikipedia that I have no more words. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Nomination fails to argue for a deficit that cannot be fixed by normal editing. Jclemens (talk) 07:21, 3 November 2021 (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.