Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/105 mm

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|105 mm}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/105_mm Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|105 mm}})

Artillery and tank gun calibre. Unsourced since 2017, fails WP:V. I assume this content could be sourced, but per WP:BURDEN that's up to those who are interested in keeping the content. If nobody is, it's got to go.

Another question is whether the topic is notable, either as an article or as a list of 105 mm guns. I have no idea. Google produces any number of hits, but they generally seem to be about specific 105 mm guns, not about the calibre as such. Sandstein 22:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 22:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - This makes a good category, as distinguished from an article; one already exists.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 22:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• The point of WP:NOTDUP is that lists and categories are complementary. This further already demonstrates that it can be annotated in ways that the category cannot. postdlf (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Delete as an article - no prejudice against a list or category being created for it. -- puddleglum^2.0 22:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Keep, no valid argument for deletion presented; all comments above are instead about fixable problems or are contra relevant guidelines on lists and categories. Clearly if the individual entries are verifiable, then an index of them together is as well, and it's just a question of migrating sources over from those articles. The nominator even "assume[s] this content could be sourced", which means per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE that deletion for lack of present sourcing is off the table. We're not talking about contentious BLP material so there's no deadline. Most of the entries in :Category:105 mm artillery even have the caliber as part of the article title so it seems silly to me to even consider that a problem. postdlf (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• KEEP Perfectly valid list article as it list related items which have their own articles. You can rename it as List of 105 mm if you want, although doesn't make any real difference here. Dream Focus 19:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Note to closer: This article was moved to 105 mm calibre during the AFD. Please be careful if using an automated script to close, that you edit/delete in the right place. Stifle (talk) 12:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Keep It appears that the popularity of this calibre is due to the success of a particular gun: Royal Ordnance L7. We could merge but it seems better to keep the more general title as a de facto standard like .22 caliber. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Keep We have plenty of articles on gun calibres, and as a NATO standard one this certainly merits its own article. My impulse is to re-assess this as a set index article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Keep 2 sources added, this is a standard artillery and tank shell used in many armies including during my own time - I'll try and find sources to my own Irish Armys (and others) use of this ammo and add JW 1961 Talk 20:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.