Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exotic weaponry


 * 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   delete. postdlf (talk) 06:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Exotic weaponry

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article title is too ambiguous to allow a meaningful article. Atomic weapons were exotic at one time: now they are commonplace. Bowler hats with steel rims are certainly exotic, but (I believe) only exist in fiction. And so on. Severe risk of becoing a ragbag of trivia. TheLongTone (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: The book provided as a source, Browning hi-power exotic weapons system, is described on Google Books as guide on making home-made submachine guns. Aside from this being a very disturbing reference, how does this support the concept of "exotic weapons" as described in the article? הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 19:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I disagree with the nom.  I don't consider a bowler hat with a steel rim to be exotic.  Putting that aside, I do agree that the term is too broad.  The 'ragbag' of trivia is a sort of innocent WP:COATRACK, where anybody can put any weapon that they consider exotic.  Exotic is a subjective quality, not an objective quality.  Even if you change the name of the article, you're likely talking about a lot of WP:OR... Roodog2k (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - the subject would seem to rely on an undefined (or personal opinion) interpretation of "exotic". Just not sure how we could ever accurate define the word in this context so as to produce a workable article. To me it's like creating Strange hats or Unusual cars. As Roodog2k notes above, the definition is subjective. What I find exotic may be considered by others to be routine, especially in circumstances where "exotic" can often be used as a synonym for "foreign". A traditional Fijian club might be considered "exotic" in England (or may have been considered "more exotic" in 19th Century England) but would be considered completely ordinary in Fiji. The European Steyr AUG rifle might be considered "exotic" in the US where gun owners would be more familiar with M16-style weapons, but would be considered "standard issue" in Australia where Steyr rifles are the weapon-of-choice for the Australian Army. I just can't see this article could ever work in any meaningful way. Stalwart 111  02:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is subjective, could not even be a category, inherently POV since my exotic weapon may be your everyday weapon. JoshuSasori (talk) 09:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I am disappointed to find that the draft has nothing to say about bowler hats or much of anything else. I've long wanted a bowler hat and our article tells us that Doctor Who will be wearing one soon too.  And, on further inspection, I find Oddjob's hat!  So, you can delete the article in question now - we have bowler hat weaponry well-covered already. Warden (talk) 11:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Marvelous! An AFD with pictures! It's been ages! Stalwart 111  12:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Is that a Strange hat or an exotic weapon?TheLongTone (talk) 12:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Both - see Chakram. Stalwart 111  12:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Dr. Who does carry around a sonic screwdriver, which is arguably an exotic weapon. I'll add it to the Exotic Weaponry in Popular Culture subsection of the article when I have a chance. Roodog2k (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Now hang on! I've just remembered that henchman Random Task (Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery) throws a shoe. Does anyone remember the guy who threw a shoe at George W. Bush? That's potentially WP:EFFECT and WP:GNG. This might not be over just yet! Ha ha. No seriously - well, the weather outside is frightening... etc, let it snow, let it snow. Stalwart 111  22:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Articles like this were common back when I joined Wikipedia in 2005, but they're now recognised as not being a good idea (though they did add some fun to the place which is now missing...). Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment At first I was going ot !vote "Delete", because the concept looks subjective, and the article looks like too. However you can find the expression used often in books and academic sources. It could be interesting to have an overhaul of the article to cover well-sourced and well-defined usage of the term. -- Cycl o pia talk  23:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's a great example of the problem - that first page of Google books results includes references to movie weapons, ancient Roman weapons, underwater guns, Role Playing Games (but not RPGs), futuristic chemical weapons and jungle weapons from the Vietnam War. Which do we decide constitutes an "exotic weapon"? Which of those 10 definitions do we use? Stalwart 111  00:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, that's why I didn't say "Keep". One should comb sources, see if and what are consistent, well sourced usages of the term and build articles on them. -- Cycl o pia talk  00:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * For sure; just not sure that would be possible, or that someone volunteering to try would be enough to stem the tide of Delete votes here. But I don't think anyone would strongly object to it. Stalwart 111  00:24, 17 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,  MBisanz  talk 20:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. I can't see why this was relisted, even after the tweaks, the scope of the article cannot be defined. I would not oppose articles about "exotic weapons" of specific times or national assemblies, perhaps unified by a grander article, but this will spiral out of control unless it is built from the bottom up. This page should be deleted and recreated as many less ambitious articles about "exotic weapons", if we ever reach consensus on what exactly that means. T.I.M(Contact) 21:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Too subjective of an article. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relister's comment I relisted this because of Cyclopia's comment near the end of the discussion relating to research which might result in an article which could be kept, which I hoped to see acted on or further discussed in a relisted debate.  MBisanz  talk 22:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment That way madness lies: it would become endlessly recursive. Define exotic: source that definition. Now find a source to back those definitions against any others. & so on. Shame, it would be an amusing Strange...but True article, but this is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a collection of beermats. I would like to know more about the man who (allegedly) set up a machine to hurl dumplings at incoming traffic at a USAF base in Germany, or the use of beehives as ammunition in siege warfare, but c'est la vie.TheLongTone (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Undefinable parameters for inclusion. Carrite (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Military technology or List of weapons. The article describes nothing but some random weapons. Besides, everybody probably has a different understanding of "exotic". — Preceding unsigned comment added by King jakob c (talk • contribs) 23:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - I think the problem here is the word "exotic". As inclusion criteria, in this usage it's just too vague. Perhaps this could be kept if the name of the page and the inclusion criteria was clearer? - jc37 02:13, 19 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.