Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gun serial number


 * 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. Geschichte (talk) 10:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Gun serial number

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unsourced article does not meet WP:GNG and is not an encyclopedic topic WP:NOTEVERYTHING. It is mentioned in other topics, but there is no WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth. There is no encyclopedic content in the article that would improve another article for merge.  // Timothy ::  talk  02:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy ::  talk  02:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy ::  talk  02:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete lacks notability and also WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Balle010 (talk) 05:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:NOTEVERYTHING is an absurd reason to delete because you can say that about literally everything. What it amounts to is NOTENCYCLOPEDIC – an argument to avoid.  The topic is, of course, notable and so easy to improve.  Our policy WP:ATD therefore applies: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 09:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply to : You have a wonderful imagination, but marking a gun with a number is WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Wikipedia policy - in this case WP:WWIN and guidelines - in this case WP:N both outrank your essay WP:ATA. Nice use of hyperbole though.  // Timothy ::  talk  12:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I saw this on NPP, and would have considered draft-ifying if it wasn't touched for another day. It's unsourced, but I would be surprised if there weren't sources available.  Unfortunately a simple Google search just gives results that assert that this is a thing, not results that say anything about gun serial numbers. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 10:15, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Now a clear Keep. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 22:28, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Easily meets GNG, although in fairness, this is chiefly a specialty field in criminology. I’ve added some scholarly works including a few patents to a Further reading section, as well as some inline cites. I’ve also found:
 * certainly there are more.  Glee anon 12:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Nominating a stub article four hours and 20 minutes after it was created for an obviously valid topic is ridiculous. The article has now been greatly expanded, and ample references found.  There are laws regulating this, its a very common thing, a lot of people go to jail for removing serial numbers, not sure how this wouldn't be seen as obviously suitable for an article in this encyclopedia.    D r e a m Focus  17:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep an obviously important topic. We should have an article on everything. Adequate references prove importance of topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: To name just two of Gleeanon409's sources, the Washington Post and Criminalistics references are solid. Clearly notable topic. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability and importance are self-evident. Elms super 04:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep without prejudice for future complete overhaul to balance the current US centrism, sources exist. Cavalryman (talk) 10:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC).
 * Keep for reasons cited by User:Gleeanon409, User:Toughpigs. User:Graeme Bartlett and User:Dream Focus. Article and sourcing is not what it was when nominated for deletion.  WP:HEY.  I agree with User:Cavalryman that article should be expanded and tagged to reflect a world view. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 15:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree with Toughpigs Graeme Bartlett Dream Focus. Good work Gleeanon409 — Ad Meliora Talk∕Contribs 11:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep with prejudice This topic clearly belongs on Wikipedia. I just came to Wikipedia to look this up and was very annoyed to see the AfD tag. If you weren't happy with the article, you should have started by trying to improve it (see WP:Improve the junk). When you can't find references to support it, that's when you should be making a nomination to delete. In this case however, there are clearly plenty of references, so you've earned yourself a WP:WHACK! for making this nomination; hopefully you'll learn to do better in the future! -NorsemanII (talk) 04:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * certainly there are more.  Glee anon 12:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Nominating a stub article four hours and 20 minutes after it was created for an obviously valid topic is ridiculous. The article has now been greatly expanded, and ample references found.  There are laws regulating this, its a very common thing, a lot of people go to jail for removing serial numbers, not sure how this wouldn't be seen as obviously suitable for an article in this encyclopedia.    D r e a m Focus  17:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep an obviously important topic. We should have an article on everything. Adequate references prove importance of topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: To name just two of Gleeanon409's sources, the Washington Post and Criminalistics references are solid. Clearly notable topic. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability and importance are self-evident. Elms super 04:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep without prejudice for future complete overhaul to balance the current US centrism, sources exist. Cavalryman (talk) 10:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC).
 * Keep for reasons cited by User:Gleeanon409, User:Toughpigs. User:Graeme Bartlett and User:Dream Focus. Article and sourcing is not what it was when nominated for deletion.  WP:HEY.  I agree with User:Cavalryman that article should be expanded and tagged to reflect a world view. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 15:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree with Toughpigs Graeme Bartlett Dream Focus. Good work Gleeanon409 — Ad Meliora Talk∕Contribs 11:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep with prejudice This topic clearly belongs on Wikipedia. I just came to Wikipedia to look this up and was very annoyed to see the AfD tag. If you weren't happy with the article, you should have started by trying to improve it (see WP:Improve the junk). When you can't find references to support it, that's when you should be making a nomination to delete. In this case however, there are clearly plenty of references, so you've earned yourself a WP:WHACK! for making this nomination; hopefully you'll learn to do better in the future! -NorsemanII (talk) 04:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep for reasons cited by User:Gleeanon409, User:Toughpigs. User:Graeme Bartlett and User:Dream Focus. Article and sourcing is not what it was when nominated for deletion.  WP:HEY.  I agree with User:Cavalryman that article should be expanded and tagged to reflect a world view. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 15:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree with Toughpigs Graeme Bartlett Dream Focus. Good work Gleeanon409 — Ad Meliora Talk∕Contribs 11:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep with prejudice This topic clearly belongs on Wikipedia. I just came to Wikipedia to look this up and was very annoyed to see the AfD tag. If you weren't happy with the article, you should have started by trying to improve it (see WP:Improve the junk). When you can't find references to support it, that's when you should be making a nomination to delete. In this case however, there are clearly plenty of references, so you've earned yourself a WP:WHACK! for making this nomination; hopefully you'll learn to do better in the future! -NorsemanII (talk) 04:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.