Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technical (vehicle)


 * 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) Mhhossein (talk) 07:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Technical (vehicle)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is taking a recent term for improvised fighting vehicles and dragging it kicking and screaming into the past. There's material here, perhaps, for a smaller more focused article, or a larger, renamed or merged one. Anmccaff (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep You failed to make a proper argument in accordance with WP:DEL. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 20:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It completely overlaps with Improvised fighting vehicle. Sorry, I thought that part was obvious.  Anmccaff (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep A "technical" is a fairly specific type of fighting vehicle, and a highly notable type. Nick-D (talk) 08:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Specific? It's a pickup with a gun of some kind in the back, a usage that goes back as far as pickups do.  Beyond, if you count the earlier parallel with wagons and carts. Dunno about the notability (by this name), either.  "gun truck," "battlewagon," &cet. Certainly there's a lot of recent usage; how much of that is Wiki-circular is an important question. Anmccaff (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Re: Notability, I first saw this term used in a video game back in 2003, and it was specifically used for a civilian pickup truck with a machine gun in the back. It is not wiki-circular in my mind. 45.49.121.83 (talk) 09:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't say "just Wiki-circular" or "only Wiki-circular." A usage in 2003, not long after the Unpleasantness in Somalia began, is somewhat unlikely to be cribbed from Wiki.  In fact, it may be directly based on actual real-world usage.  On the other hand, ISIS was not providing "technical support" to the UN very much.  Nor was  Pershing, and similar kluges were used in the Punitive Expedition.  Here, for example, we can see lewis guns mounted on Model T pick-em-ups.


 * This article is anachronistic presentism Merge it.  Anmccaff (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Entirely notable, though will need to be defined carefully in order to start the article *only* when the term technical came into use; clearly there have been entirely separate improvised fighting vehicles (Semple Tank etc) for decades. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * When and where; the term spread from Somalia, so the usage wasn't picked up in other places that already had war reporters until quite later. More importantly, when you can show an easy example from 1916 that's identical conceptually, the idea that it was some sort of innovation just doesn't hold water.  Anmccaff (talk) 00:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep and I nearly closed it myself, this is convincing to keep. SwisterTwister   talk  04:39, 22 April 2016 (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.