Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C-6 (explosive)


 * 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 plastic explosive. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  01:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

C-6 (explosive)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Declined speedy, nominated by article's original creator. Cannot delete under G7 because of other edits in between. Believed to be original research. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep . Unless the content is false, which is not claimed in the nomination, this seems to be a valid subject for a stub article. It needs a reference for verifiability and the trivial bit at the bottom should go. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Found nothing at Google news archive, or at Google Book search, about a specific explosive named "C-6," which goes against notability, but verifiability might be satisfied by which refers to "classes b-2, c-6 and c-7 explosives." On the other hand this could refer to administrative code paragraphs, and not a specific explosive. A Russian source [dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/eng_rus/593645/liquid] appears to refer to it, "C-6 (explosive) — C-6 or Compositio C-6 is a variety of military plastic explosive. It is about 1.4 times as explosive as the much better kow C-4, .." but the reliability is unknown and the text is the same as the Wikipedia article.. "C6" appears to be the beginning of the chemical formula for TNT, so this might have given rise to a mistaken belief it is a particular explosive. So I have to argue for deletion on the basis of lack of notability and verifiability unless reliable sources can be found. Edison (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete since the article is no good on its own, and editors (thank you Edison) have to do a lot to figure out what exactly is going on. If the thing exists, fine, but notability seems not yet to have been established, given the complete lack of references in the article and the meager results Edison's apparently diligent search. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to plastic explosive as plausible misidentification 76.66.198.171 (talk) 07:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have since marked the article for 'Speedy Delete' as the person I originally spoke to about it apparently has no recollection of this compound. So either delete or redirect to plastic explosive is fine. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was assuming that any genuine, named explosive compound would be notable. It seems that I was wrong so I have withdrawn my weak keep above. A redirect seems the best answer. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to plastic explosive per the IP — if we have a source for the existence of such a thing, I don't see how it would help to get rid of it altogether, even though it doesn't seem worthy of an article as is. Nyttend (talk) 04:03, 20 January 2009 (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.