Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boomstick


 * 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 Merge to Sawed-off shotgun. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-11 04:29Z 

Boomstick

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Love the movie, absolutely, but this is a tad crufty &mdash; RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib 00:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge or redirect to Sawed-off shotgun. hateless 00:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per hateless. Seems like a pretty good solution. Chairman S. Talk  Contribs  01:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge - possible search term for fans of the movie/game but as a standalone article it is a neologism of no note. Only other use I can find is as a brand of paintball gun - Peripitus (Talk) 01:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge Definitely do not keep as an article. Xiner (talk, email) 01:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge is an excellent idea. Natalie 04:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge, definitely. Realkyhick 08:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect per Hateless, it's a nice little piece, but there's not enough there for a full-blown article, the info can be secured and searchers can still get all the info they need (and detailed info on the sawn-off shotgun to boot!). Bloody marvellous :D QuagmireDog 11:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:Notability, not relevant enough. Telly   addict Editor review! 16:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge Seems like the article is insufficiently referenced to demonstrate notability for its own article. While I think there might be a hypothetical case for the slang term maybe being notable enough for an article, maybe, as is I don't see the references to verify it's notable enough for its own article. For notability purposes, compare to D'oh!.  I'd reconsider the Boomstick article if it is brought a little closer to D'oh! in terms of scope and references. Dugwiki 22:14, 7 February 2007 (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.