Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crossfire


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure)  Automatic Strikeout  ( T •  C ) 19:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Crossfire

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has no references and is mostly just a definition for the term. Since an entry exists on Wiktionary, content on this article should be added to that page if it isn't already there.  JC  &middot; &#32; Xbox  &middot; &#32; Talk &middot; &#32; Contributions 01:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Good concept for an article, just needs references IMHO Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems like a good topic for an encyclopedia as well as a dictionary. I'm surprised there is not already such an article. - MrX 02:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yes, it is a useful word for a range of military articles, but so is the word "the".  Not a cohesive topic.  No sources, no indication of wp:notability as a topic.    North8000 (talk) 12:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Move. To Crossfire (military), and leave behind a disamb page. I'm surprised this doesn't exist yet. § FreeRangeFrog 21:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The subject is about when the fields of fire from any two guns or weapon systems cross each other. Such an article on no cohesive topic would be doomed to be a mess.  Please consider this.   Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep agree with DeathLibrarian. Disagree on deleting articles not because there couldn't or shouldn't be one, but because "it would be a mess".    Th e S te ve   10:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per North8000. This is a definition, not something that requires a full article.Intothatdarkness 21:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Encyclopaedic term, certainly not just a dicdef. Much more can be written about it than has yet been. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Theo polisme  08:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Clearly notable topic, far more than a dictionary definition. Could easily be expanded. Needs sources and improvement, not deletion. Don't move; this is as clear cut a case of WP:Primary topic as I've ever run across, meeting both usage and long-term criteria. Enormously common term; every listing on the disambiguation page is based ultimately on this particular word usage. This is a case of so many incorrect search engine hits, it's difficult to come up with quick online sources, though they are certain to exist. I'm taking the liberty of requesting sources at WT:MILHIST; this should not be seen as canvassing, instead as a legitimate search for sources. (As an aside and reply to User:MrX and User:FreeRangeFrog above--not part of my keep assertion--this article has existed in one form or another since January 2002.) BusterD (talk) 08:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The term has widespread military usage, so it can be expanded beyond its current state. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a tactic, not just a definition. Jim in Georgia Contribs  Talk  14:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment FM 3-21.8 uses the term "Interlocking fires."-- Jim in Georgia Contribs  Talk  14:32, 9 December 2012 (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.