Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ideal Conceal


 * 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. clpo13(talk) 23:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Ideal Conceal

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD, submitted to afd per contributor's request. Promotional, advertising of an unreleased but announced product, just another concealed weapon, can be handled with a line or two in "pocket pistol", not notable just because it looks like a fake cell phone, part of a general class of concealed weapons and not individually notable. Wtshymanski (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment When you say "contributor's request", do you mean creator? Me? When did I request it? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Arguably with this edit comment "... it is AfD time." 86.168.83.226 (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Arguably, but only as a really, really terrible argument. You see, the whole edit summary was "rm prod and remove price. i'm allowed to do this. please do not restore the prod template. once removed, it is AfD time. That's how it works". You left out the rest in your diff.


 * Surely Wtshymanski read the whole thing, so I am confused about how he would misconstrue that as a request. Plus, he also must have read this and this. Wtshymanski, would you care to explain, in the absence of stupidity or malice (I trust you are not stupid or bad), how you construed that as a request? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You removed the prod, you said it's time to submit the article to afd, and here we are. I remember the old days when words meant what they said. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And after reading all I wrote at article talk and edit summaries, you still thought that was a request, okay. I remember the old days when it was understood what words obviously meant. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And for what it was worth u|Anna Frodesiak as the article's creator, was the one person not permitted to remove the PROD, but she did. Anyway, we are here now. 86.168.83.226 (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Afaik, there isn't anything preventing an article's creator being the one that removes the tag. Good form or not is separate. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a bit cock-eyed isn't it. The creator of an article is almost certain to remove a PROD. 86.168.83.226 (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, 86.168.83.226 and Nosebagbear. Yes, that is correct.


 * PROD must only be used if no opposition is expected. Opposition was obviously to be expected. Wtshymanski, please review policy.


 * A PROD may never be restored once removed. I removed it. Kbrose restored it. Kbrose, please review policy.


 * Any editor, including the article's creator may remove the tag. That was me, and I had every right to do so. I know policy.


 * I started this line of comment because the lead here has the disingenuous "... submitted to afd per contributor's request..." and that is all. Shall we move on? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Kudos to not only for article creation and knowledge of Wikipedia's rules, but for one of Wikipedia's cleverest user names.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you so, so much, Tom. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep This gun was mentioned by Chuck Schumer and Jaclyn Corin and will be featured by the NRA. That in itself should be enough for notability. Plus. there are plenty of sources for it to pass GNG. The article itself is mostly criticism, so the claim of it being promotional can be addressed by simply removing the price. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 03:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep That the NRA will feature it won't, of itself, help its notability, though I imagine some coverage of it will occur, which would aid it. In any case the other sources are sufficient to provide notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebagbear (talk • contribs) 10:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Sources in article are sufficient; in addition the topic of guns and violence is a major one in contemporary political discourse (crime, NRA, gun violence, elections, etc) and will continue to be huge in the foreseeable future.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 08:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep It doesn't look promotional at all to me, and it easily passes the GNG. -- irn (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2018 (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.