Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weapon of the Cambodian Civil War


 * 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.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Weapon of the Cambodian Civil War

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Weapons used in a war. Doesnt cite any reference and sources.  U z E E  02:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete WP is not for lists, nothing notable about this particular aspect of the war. JJL (talk) 02:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I realize I'm invoking WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but there are several similar articles on other wars, including Vietnam and the US Civil War, as well as those for specific US military branches such as the US Marine Corps.   I have concern that this one is on the chopping block because its a Cambodian war and not a North American one, thus falling victim to systemic bias.   I will also readily admit that it currently suffers from a WP:V problem, but I believe that can be rectified with research and is not a good basis for delete in this case.  (It also needs a rename to be more grammatical.)  -- ShinmaWa(talk) 02:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Article needs a move/rename, as ShinmaWa points out, and does need references and sources per nom, but considering the article is a mere two hours old, it seems a bit unfair to delete it during inception, since per ShinmaWa's comment above precedent exists for such lists. And since en.wikipedia features lists, it seems presumptuous to say they have no place in the pedia. BusterD (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. All the makings of a worthwhile and highly sourced article. Lambton T/C 04:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, renamed (perhaps) as "List of weapons used in the Cambodian Civil War", and perhaps add some context to the list where necessary. Duncan1800 (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I just performed a little bit of cleanup editing; as lists go, this one is pretty well organized. Duncan1800 (talk) 05:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   —Nick Dowling (talk) 07:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. It's a wretched stubby article at the moment but has potential to be much more than a list. Majoreditor (talk) 13:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep If the reasons for deletion are it "Doesnt cite any reference and sources." I think these claims are largely invalid as the article was nominated 2 minutes after its creation, time should be given for the article to grow before it becomes tagged for AfD unless it is obvious spam in the mean time I suggest a tag suggesting the article be sourced, etc, etc. --Sin Harvest (talk) 14:28, 8 February 2008 (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.