Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swivel gun


 * 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 of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 05:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Swivel gun
Article Pivot gun has mergeto Swivel gun tag but Talk:Swivel gun says it has been transwikified to the Wiktionary. I think the pivot gun and swivel gun articles are notable enough for Wikipedia Thatcher131 04:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, per nom. It's a good article with a neat image. Wikitionary or not, it has a place here. &mdash; Graibeard(talk) 07:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, per nom. These should later be merged. Tom Harrison Talk 16:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I merged in from Pivot gun. Anthony Appleyard 17:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The tag appears to be left over from last year when the article wasn't much more than a dicdef; it was subsequently expanded but the tag seems to have been forgotten about. However, merging the two articles is a bad idea in my opinion. A swivel gun is not the same thing as a pivot gun: swivel guns are specifically small cannon on a swiveling mount, while pivot guns are usually much larger weapons mounted on a rail or track. I'll have a go at expanding the two articles over the weekend. -- ChrisO 18:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Pictures of the different kinds would be nice. Thatcher131 20:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten the articles and added a pic of a pivot gun. Hopefully this will resolve the confusion! -- ChrisO 00:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have reverted Swivel gun and Pivot gun to as they were before my merge, since it now seems that my merge was not justified. Anthony Appleyard 21:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I knew I was right to wait before voting -- Ruby  01:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, good article. Very good article.  Not great, but very good nonetheless. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:01, 20 February 2006 (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.