Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Field of fire (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   keep. postdlf (talk) 01:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Field of fire (weaponry)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

nothing but WP:OR, unreferenced since 2005. I've tried to find sources and while I can find the term used in plenty of situations, it seems the best we could do would leave this as a WP:NOTDICDEF. I recommend deletion and perhaps listing at Wiktionary. Toddst1 (talk) 12:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is about the concept of field of fire, not the expression. I'm sure other languages have other terms for it. This takes it out of the dictionary class.  However the article could use improvement and sources. Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep There are numerous books of tactics which discuss this concept in detail such as Rifles and Machine Guns; Infantry Training; Infantry Fire; Machine-Gun Tactics; Tactics and Technique of Infantry; Machine Guns: their history and tactical employment. The idea that this topic is original is quite mistaken. Warden (talk) 22:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The topic is clearly not OR. The writing seems to be observations on the subject, i.e. OR. Toddst1 (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Our writings are supposed to be original; otherwise it would be copyright violation/palgiarism. What OR prohibits is original theories/discoveries but the material here is standard stuff of the WWI/WW2 era. Warden (talk) 08:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve per above - it's about the concept, not the phrase, so not WP:NOTDICT. Ansh666 01:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Ansh666. It is about a well-known concept, not the phrase. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:04, 20 June 2013 (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.