Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pneumatic line thrower


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Pneumatic line thrower

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Original research on an unremarkable device. Lacks references to significant coverage in 3rd party sources demonstrating sufficient notability to warrant a dedicated article. Perhaps a mention in the underway replenishment article would appropriate but only with sufficient references. RadioFan (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. "Unremarkable" is not a valid reason for deletion and unsourced does not equal original research.  Since there is a book titled Pneumatic Line Thrower (thesis?) the notability argument pretty much fails as well.  This is a basic piece of maritime equipment.  In my opinion, all basic tools and equipment are intrinsically notable and should have articles.  I requested this article undeleted at WP:REFUND after following a redlink, but otherwise have had nothing to do with its creation.  I am not in a position to fully reference this article but I will make a start with what I can find online.  Spinning  Spark  09:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Notability is not inherent nor it is inherited. Eduemoni↑talk↓  20:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And your point is...what? What do you suppose I am asserting the subject has inherited notability from?  My assertion is that any widely used tool is notable and sources are bound to be available.  A tool invented by your five-year-old sister for digging up worms — maybe not notable.  On the other hand hammer is unquestionably notable and I don't really need to go grubbing around for sources to prove it.  Spinning  Spark  21:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Lyle gun and Underway replenishment are related topics, and a merge may be possible. Some weak sources on pneumatic line throwers, mostly trade press - this suggests that if someone has access to the various Lloyds List magazines and other nautical trade publications there is more coverage. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep A merge may be possible, but I think it optional. It's OK as it is.  DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * keep - looks to squeak past WP:GNG to me. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:07, 31 July 2013 (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.