Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bombs (2nd nomination)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

List of bombs
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does not have any sources, and possibly contains prediction. Larryzhao123 (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Larryzhao123 (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete: fails WP:NLIST - I don't see any sources that would specifically mention these as a group. In addition, the sources mentioned in the previous AfD seem to be pay-walled (I can't verify that they do support this list). Use the WP:TNT. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per below new points below the list does seem to meet standards as a navigational list, which is a good point - but we should also be in mind WP:INDISCRIMINATE. But, since the article does satisfy the list criteria at WP:WHYN, as a navigational list where someone might go to find a bomb to research (by looking at the list), I change my vote. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 13:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Per WP:BLUE, we really don't need sources to confirm that pages like car bomb, pipe bomb and neutron bomb are about types of bomb. The general concept passes WP:LISTN as it's easy to find sources such as Bombs and Bombings; Bomb Scares; Bombs, IEDs, and Explosives; British standard bombs; &c.  The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing per WP:ATD, WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE.  See also WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep A list that aids in navigation is always a valid list.  D r e a m Focus  06:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Meets CLN as a navigation list.  // Timothy :: talk  13:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: per the above suggestions, I have taken the liberty to change the list so that it would better fufill its purpose as a navigational aid. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I reverted you. List can have additional information making them far more useful than categories.  A table could be made which list the years they were created in and other information.   D r e a m Focus  15:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I turned it into a sortable table with additional information added from the articles linked to.  D r e a m Focus  16:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep These types of lists are very useful and it also passes WP:LISTN.Less Unless (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2021 (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.


 * Keep Don't see a valid reason for deletion. Riddhidev BISWAS (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)