Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cold weapon (3rd nomination)


 * 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 cold weapon. A clear consensus has been formed. (non-admin closure) Mr. Guye (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Cold weapon
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As wikipedia is not a dictionary. I tried to find citations for the term so it could be transwikied to wiktionary, but everything I could find appeared to be on wikis, and hence not suitable. I suspect the phrase is not really used. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 11.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 09:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * DELETE...Never heard of cold weapons before, can't find any non-wiki-mirror sources. I suspect that author just made it up by combining the common terms Cold steel and Melee weapons because he thought it sounded cool. If necessary, I would accept a redirect to Melee weapons just to make it go away--RAF910 (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete with strong prejudice against a redirect unless and until someone finds sources (I did not). Of the former AfDs, one was a delete, one was a "no consensus per lack of comments". The second AfD (June 2014) in particular was a fiasco: PROD was declined per "page already went to AfD" (though it was deleted...?) and then AfD fails per lack of comments. Tigraan (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Mark Viking, below, did find sources (congrats!). Most of those are translations from Eastern sources so one could argue that it is notable in Russian but not in English. (Even if notability of topics is independent of the language, surely notability of terms is not.) But well, redirect, it is cheap and there is little potential of confusion.  Tigraan Click here to contact me 08:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Soft redirect per discussion below. Tigraan Click here to contact me 07:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Speediest Possible Delete As non notable article in every way. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to melee weapon. It looks like it started out as a Slavic term for melee weapons or non-firearms. Here is a mention in a book from 1876, a Russian book on Third Reich cold weaponry, a definition of a "cold weapon" in some Kosovo legislature (page 3). Also a search for "cold weapon" on Pinterest or Ebay will show hits for melee weapons. Hence, this term is not just made up one day. But neither is it notable; I doubt there is much beyond definitions out there. Accordingly, I would recommend a redirect to melee weapon. --Mark viking (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect per, or perhaps soft redirect to wiktionary per below. While thin, there does appear to be some reliable support for the term (here is a recent book using the term). — Nizolan  (talk) 01:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - redirecting to melee weapon is problematic because ranged weapons such as bows are also "cold weapons" (i.e. lacking explosives). List of premodern combat weapons would be appropriate if the list didn't contain list of premodern combat weapons. firearm: "cold weapon" and "white weapon" are red at wikt. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 05:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Per Mark Viking's links, the term "cold weapon" is used specifically to refer to melee weapons (and rather modern ones, at that). So (unless there is a source to that effect) deciding to include bows and the like would be at best WP:OR. Tigraan Click here to contact me 08:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Look at page four of that source: "1.33. '' means special equipment for firearms or cold weapons, which is designed as a sight or optical device used to assist aim by guiding the eye and aligning it with a weapon or other item to be pointed. An optic sight may be used to enhance hunting and sport arms used respective authorized purposes, as authorised by the competent body as a shooting or hunting association." Optic sights are not placed on melee weapons. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 22:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Soft redirect might be the best option in that case. I started a page at wiktionary, which can be fleshed out with a couple of quotations from the citations given in this discussion (I added the Kosovo law and the Chinese sword book). — Nizolan  (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. I read only the definition of "cold weapon" in the same source, which looked like it applied only to melee. Oh well... Tigraan Click here to contact me 07:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC) Relisted? Are you kidding? Just redirect it already.--RAF910 (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect at best for now as it's seems connected to Melee weapons and this is still questionable for a better separate article.  SwisterTwister   talk  22:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Soft Redirect to cold weapon, and Oppose redirecting to melee weapon, per the discussion above. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 00:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment In the interest of consensus, I would be happy support a soft redirect to cold weapon instead. Some sources focus on melee, others just on non-explosive. The point is to give the reader some idea of what cold weapon means. --Mark viking (talk) 03:28, 26 April 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.