Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firearm (tool)


 * 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   no consensus to delete. Discussion to merge and/or redirect should take place at the article's talk page. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Firearm (tool)

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

POV fork apparently created just to spite a consensus (here and here) that the lead sentence in Firearm should say it's a weapon, not a tool... The article in question includes no new content, and is barely more than a copy/paste job using a few other previously created articles... most of the content does not even discuss the use of firearms as tools, as the creator claims, but instead alternative ammunition choices that can be used with firearms...  A small bit of the content could easily be merged into Firearm, but there is no need for this POV fork... Adolphus79 (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Classic POV fork. Tevildo (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. this is neither a POV fork nor anything to spite any consensus.  First, there is no consensus.  Second, the edit warriors on the "Firearm" article refuse to allow any distinction that allows a firearm be used for anything other than as a weapon.  This defies reality and is quite POV in and of itself. There is a concerted effort to squelch the reality that firearms aren't always weapons.  This is censorship and in quite poor taste.  I'll agree that this article includes the same content, but in light of the fact that there is stuburn exclusionism going on with the other article, I find it difficult to vote to censor this information by deleting it. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 21:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - if an article has POV issues, then they should be resolved within that article through the appropriate channels, not by forking. See WP:POVFORK (already quoted in nomination).  This article is about the same subject as Firearm. Tevildo (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - But, there are no firearms used as tools mentioned in the Firearm (weapon) article, and the lede sentence in that article even defines a firearm as a weapon (ONLY)? There are clearly firearms that are not weapons, and they have no summary article at present such as this one, as do the firearms that are weapons. Yaf (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are a whole class of firearms that are not weapons (Manby Mortar, Lyle gun, powder-actuated tool, flare gun) for which there is no summary article at present.  The consensus to date on firearm (weapon) has been that the firearms on that page are weapons only.  This article clearly provides coverage of a neglected class of firearms on Wikipedia, in WP:Summary style. It should be kept. Yaf (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is obviously a non-trivial content dispute with legitimate opinions on both sides - but forking is not the way to resolve it. Tevildo (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - please note that there has been no discussion from the members of the "tool" side of these discussions to add a small section to the Firearm article about firearms not primarily used as weapons, the only discussion has been regarding the lead sentence (also note that Firearm (weapon) is a redirect created in the POV fork process)... I said in the nomination that a small bit of this article could be merged with Firearm... the Flare guns and powder-actuated tools could both have a brief mention at the bottom of the Firearm article (but certainly no need to copy/paste those articles)... that I can remember, no one has ever argued that content could not be added to the Firearm article, but that the lead should not make the statement that firearms are primarily used as tools... - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - There was a proposal to list a firearm as both a weapon and as a tool, with cites. It was vehemently removed, with malice, amongst talk discussions that a firearm was ONLY a weapon.  It doesn't make sense to start an article stating that a firearm is a weapon (ONLY) and then put content into the article on non-weapons.  It wouldn't be amongst the scope of the lede.  This article, firearm (tool) should stand, as should firearm (weapon).  They are duals, reflecting different usages of firearms.  Yaf (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as a POV fork. I see that some of the material has been appropriated from other articles via a copy and paste, so there is little point to merger. --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. POV fork, redundant article with content consisting of mostly either copy and pasted material from other articles, or unsourced content. Theserialcomma (talk) 02:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article's content is currently not covered in the Firearm article.  While it could be merged into the firearm article, that is not what has been proposed or discussed.  Until that time, it should be kept. --Hamitr (talk) 02:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * a lot of the article's content is just copied verbatim from other articles. see the article's talk page for some evidence of that. of the remaining content that is original and sourced, it can be placed into the main article. Theserialcomma (talk) 03:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Then a merge template should be put on the article if it remains after this AFD closes. --Hamitr (talk) 05:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete this is nothing but a POV content fork. Merge whatever is worth saving into Firearm.Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge without prejudice against later recreation. The content in the article is sourced and encyclopedic, and not repeated elsewhere. It is not a POV fork, and should not be deleted. Either keep the current article with a link to it from Firearm, or merge the information to Firearm. LK (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * most of the first paragraph is stolen from the main firearms article. most of Firearm_(tool) is stolen from Firearm's 'background'. Firearm_(tool) is copied directly from Firearm and so on throughout the whole article. I'm not sure where you came up with "the content in the article ... is not repeated elsewhere" also, see [] for more examples of stolen material Theserialcomma (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If that were true, that would mean that a firearm was, indeed a tool and exclusion of that fact amounts to censorship. You want there to be no mention of the word Tool or any mention that a firearm can be something other than a weapon.  You can't have it that way and then also want to delete the article that defines firearms that are clearly not weapons such as flare guns, line throwing guns, nail guns... as much as you want to, you cannot have it both ways. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * it's not censorship just because people disagree with you. do you have any comments that are actually factual and related to this AFD? Theserialcomma (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Just because some of the material is repeated elsewhere, does not mean that the whole article should be deleted. I have reviewed all the relevant articles, and I reiterate, there exists sourced encyclopedic content that is not repeated elsewhere. LK (talk) 16:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge - If the definition of firearm is that it is a weapon, and the definition of weapon is that it is a tool (Yep, that's right - see for yourself!), then there's no need for us to have a separate article about firearms as tools. This content should be merged with the firearms article. -- MaverickSolutions (talk) 00:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree that a merge is acceptable, however, you're committing a logical fallacy here. You've made an argument logically equivalent to: 'All Chickens are Birds. We have an article on Chickens, so, we do not need an article on Birds. The content should be merged to the article on Chickens.' LK (talk) 16:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I find it hard to classify a flare gun as a weapon.  Ditto for a powder-actuated tool, categorized in Australia as a firearm.  Likewise for a Manby Mortar used to throw a line for a breeches buoy. Likewise for a Lyle gun, that performs a similar function.  Yet, these are all are, or are considered, or are legislatively defined as --- firearms. There are a host of firearms that clearly are not weapons.  (Analagous to Birds that are not Chickens, there are firearms that are not weapons...)  It is silly to define these non-weapon firearms as weapons.  As for claims that the content of this article was "stolen" or "plagiarized", see WP:Summary style, where it is defined that the use of articles that summarize the contents of other articles while providing additional information is not a POV fork.  Looks like a clear case of a missing article, summarizing firearms that are not weapons, but that are tools. Yaf (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * a flare gun is defined as a gun that fires flares, not a weapon. because, after all, not all "guns" are weapons. some guns, like soldering guns, flare guns, staple guns, etc. are not designed to be weapons, and hence are not firearms, since firearms, by dictionary definition and talk page consensus, are weapons. the word 'gun' has multiple definitions, however, and one of them is "devices for shooting something under pressure," which isn't necessarily a weapon. therefore, if we all defaulted to the dictionary and believed it the first time around, we wouldn't have wasted our time with this POV fork article. Theserialcomma (talk) 03:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge - We should have a "Firearm" article and have both weapon and tool uses described there. Firearm (weapon) and Firearm (tool) should both redirect there. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The article seems fine. The issue of forking would be resolved by merger not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:49, 15 April 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.