Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of disappearing gun installations (2nd nomination)

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. postdlf (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of disappearing gun installations[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This duplicates almost completely the list of significant installations in the Disappearing gun article. I still- I nominated this for deletion once before - do not see this as adding anything to Wikipedia except bytes. Anmccaff (talk) 20:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC) Anmccaff (talk) 20:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ -- See below // Original comment: yes, the subject is covered adequately in Disappearing_gun#Significant_Installations and the list article is not useful. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why have a separate page for a list already on another article? If this list has some additional info then why not just merge it? if not, then delete it. It has the appearance of an ego standoff to keep it separate when merging makes so much sense. I've decided to retract that opinion due to my inexperience in Wiki.Thanks.--J. M. Pearson (talk) 13:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SPINOUT. This list is redundant only because the content was not removed from the initial page, which should have been done. The article about disappearing guns is long enough already. Move the applicable content to the list and keep the two separate. This was the conclusion from the previous AfD and it should be the conclusion yet again. Editors should boldly clean the mess rather than nominate for deletion. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the list in the article is of significant installations. They would have to remain, although perhaps not in list form, of course. This list is apparently a substitute for a tag; if actually populated, it would have several thousand entries...more, depending on how far the idea of "installation" was taken. This was the dominant form of heavy fixed gun for several decades in all developed countries, and for longer still in the US. Anmccaff (talk) 04:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Chris: I tend to agree that this would work better as a separate article rather than a section of the disappearing gun article. Nick-D (talk) 02:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chris. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The same guy who nominated it for deletion months ago, with everyone saying keep, nominates it again. Don't keep repeating an AFD hoping to get the results you want. Anyway, its too long to fit everything in the other list. Plenty of valid entries here, they all seem to link to forts notable enough to have their own articles that also have pictures of these guns there. Dream Focus 20:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...and note in the meantime, articles have been added at a rate that suggest the list will be half-populated sometime about two hundred years from now. We no more now need a list of every installation than we need a List of Pintos by VIN, and the glacial pace of additions accurately reflects that.. Anmccaff (talk) 22:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately Wikipedia is WP:NOTFINISHED. Nick-D (talk) 07:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the arguments for keeping the article have been solid. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Most of the installations here are germane to the main page, and should not be removed from there -although, as I've said, they need not be kept in a list form. Simply removing them would not improve the article. Anmccaff (talk) 22:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.