Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of improvised weapons


 * 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   delete. Courcelles (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

List of improvised weapons

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The article Improvised weapons was previously deleted as a mess of original research. This article was then re-started as a listing of objects that could be used as improvised weapons. Because it was a list it was then moved to its current article title List of improvised weapons with Improvised weapons left as a redirect to the new list. To avoid it listing every item in the world, consensus was achieved to only list objects for which references could be found. The same editor who re-started the article then created a new article in place of the redirect at Improvised weapons including a large list of improvised weapons and thus creating a large degree of overlap between Improvised weapons and List of improvised weapons. I proposed the obvious solutions of a merger or leaving the list of objects in the list article and removing them from the descriptive article, but due to lack of participating editors there was no consensus. I agreed to remove the merge tags, wait a month to see if the problem had been addressed and if not to take this to AfD to gain a wider consensus on how to deal with the problem. The problem of a high degree of overlap remains and I believe that only one of the two articles is needed. Either article could have been listed for AfD, but since Improvised weapons is probably the more logical title I have chosen to nominate List of improvised weapons for deletion. Ahunt (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Even with cites such a list would eventually end up including random household objects and bits of this and that, a thousand random examples are not needed to demonstrate such a basic concept. There's probably enough sources out there to flesh out a decent article looking at when and why improvised weapons are used, but this list is just trivia. Someoneanother 22:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think Someone or another summarizes this well.   JBsupreme  ( talk ) ✄ ✄ ✄	 22:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Someone. I just see no value here. &mdash; e. ripley\talk 02:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Such a list could not be complete without just being a list of objects. The selection of a representative few could be OR. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This comment will be fleshed out when I have some time available. Tomithy83 (talk) 14:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This article is not so different from other list articles. Articles such as List of ancient weapons, List of modern weapons, List of shotguns, List of fictional swords and List of Star Wars characters will never be complete. Even List of sovereign states is missing entries such as Principality of Sealand and Principality of Hutt River. while I do not suggest that this article stad based on others not following the rules, I doubt that anyone would nominate these Lists to AfD based on completeness. Tomithy83 (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Graeme, most lists are "a list of objects".Tomithy83 (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sombody, you said "...a thousand...examples are not needed..." well I have not counted but there are quite a few in List of firearms perhaps that list should be reccommended for deletion? As far as random... the items are only randomised by the order of citation found. All items are cited to be Improvised weapons, thus not random. You stated that this is trivia. I argue that all lists (and encyclopedias) are trivia. The reverse to that is that they can also be used in information gathering. Tomithy83 (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Concerning the comments that the information is useless: The reason that I started these articles (Improvised weapons and List of improvised weapons) is because I had been researching various survival techniques. This caused me to research field expedient weapons as a means for food and self-defence. Naturally I searched wiki, as it is a repository of information with sources cited, only to find that the information was scattered throughout various unconnected articles. I decided to consolidate the information to the appropriate articles, Improvised weapons for a description of what Improvised weapons are and List of improvised weapons as a repository of likely and possible items that have been used for such purposes. I had a need and an interest in this information. This article was deleted previously. It stands to reason that there will be others that desire this information as well. Tomithy83 (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There appears to be no dispute on validity, only on the ablity to complete the list or rather what the list would look like if complete. I propose that the task is to provide information that is verifiable and not concern ourselves with how large of a list this becomes. If appearance becomes an issue then address those minor issue as they come up. Mandsford made a good point "some of which need no explanation, and others,...would...(need) explanation". It is by far easier to be a critic that a contributor. Tomithy83 (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Navigational lists where the population have more in common than "list of inanimate objects that someone somewhere has used to harm someone else", such as List of firearms are more likely to be for relevant research than trivia. This one's utility as a navigation list will drop dramatically the more it's filled with items which are not covered as weapons within their own articles. Even with a column for descriptions, it'd be "X whacked Y with (a milk jug, a picture frame, a rickshaw)", which is just trivia. Bulking the list out with hundreds of entries and a cite apiece would only show that otherwise unrelated objects can be used to cause harm, which can be summed up in a sentence or two within the article. An article covering who uses improvised weapons, why, periods of time and places where they have been used extensively (history), what qualities are more likely to result in an item being used as an improv. weapon etc. etc. would be interesting, useful and could contain relevant examples. There's nothing wrong with the subject itself, it's just that you've selected a grossly inefficient way of delivering information which trivializes something which is not trivial at all. You say it's easier to be a critic.. this is a community with the goal of serving the wider readership, if other contributors see you delivering information in a less than optimal way (in their opinions), expect them to say so rather than picking up a shovel. Someoneanother 23:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - User:Tomithy83: You have rather missed the point of this AfD that I explain in detail in the nomination at the top of the page. I nominated this not because there shouldn't be an article on improvised weapons, but because the two articles have a large degree of overlap and we don't need two articles on the subject. You actually support this argument above when you point out that "Naturally I searched wiki, as it is a repository of information with sources cited, only to find that the information was scattered throughout various unconnected articles". With the high degree of overlap we don't need the two articles. As far as there being other overlapped or poor quality lists justifying keeping this list see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - Ahunt (talk) 23:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep (although this may need to be moved to Tomithy's user page). The article attempts to source each of the entries, and there's precious little of that in Wikipedia.  I think that the major problem with this page is something that isn't beyond fixing, which is the presentation.  The way it reads now is an indiscriminate list of items, "Baseball bat, brick, cricket bat, crowbar, etc. etc." some of which need no explanation, and others, like "human blood" that would, or "improvised firearm", which needs more explanation than anything.  I really don't want to know how fecal matter can be used as a weapon, but some people might be interested in crap like that.  Mandsford 15:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete -- WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of info. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are few things that couldn't be made into weapons. Even cotton balls. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Procedural keep, then merge: Inappropriate venue. Since when AfD has become a venue for discussing article moves/merges? Yes, I know that AfD's can close as merge, but one should not nominate for deletion if the plan is merging from the start I agree with the nom that we should merge the list in the main article, but using AfD for this is plain wrong. -- Cycl o pia talk  16:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I agree with you that a merger discussion should be held as a merger discussion on the talk page and merging was my first choice, but as you can see on the article talk page the lack of participation resulted in "no consensus" to merge. Deleting the list article was my second choice and that is what we are here discussing today. My nomination statement is clearly to delete this article, not merge it. - Ahunt (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agreed to remove the merge tags, wait a month to see if the problem had been addressed and if not to take this to AfD to gain a wider consensus on how to deal with the problem - This is not the way to use AfD. AfD is not mean to "gain a wider consensus on how to deal with the problem", if the problem is not outright deletion of a page. You want to merge content of A to page B, and in fact that's what you proposed. The lack of participation is irrelevant: you could have posted an RfC, opened an official merge request, notified some related Wikiproject, or even being WP:BOLD and merged yourself. There are lots of venues for the kind of thing you ask; AfD is not one of these. -- Cycl o pia talk  17:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Perhaps you are right in that my nomination wording was too vague, but I have clearly stated that this proposal is to delete, not merge. - Ahunt (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2010 (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.