Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lethality

: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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

=[[:Lethality]]=

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

:({{Find sources AFD|Lethality}})

Unreferenced dictionary article Rathfelder (talk) 18:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep Per WP:DICDEF this is a stub not a dictionary entry about a word. See also our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 10:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

If it is a stub nobody seems interested in expanding it over the last 7 years. There are no references. What more would an expanded article say?Rathfelder (talk) 11:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

:* Entire books are written about the concept such as [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=oHHkFiWEmfYC Lethality in Combat]. There is plenty of technical content out there such as [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=oHHkFiWEmfYC Lethality Concept]. Please see WP:BEFORE. Andrew D. (talk) 11:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep. I agree with Andrew Davidson that this is a notable topic for which sources can be found. (Point of order - is this the third nomination or the first? I can't find the previous ones.) Felsic2 (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

:The first two are recent but empty and and so seem to be false starts. Andrew D. (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Exactly - I had some technical problems. I have no objection to the preservation of the article if it is improved.Rathfelder (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
No problem - it just made me wonder if I was missing something. As for the article, what matters is how notable the topic is, not how good the present article is. With [https://www.google.com/search?channel=fs&q=lethality&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=lethality&channel=fs&tbm=bks this Google search], I'm seeing books covering several aspects of "lethality", such as "Small Arms Lethality", "Carbon Monoxide Lethality", and so on. Felsic2 (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep per WP:DEADLINE. This clearly could be expanded in any number of suitable ways; the fact that it hasn't been yet is not a reason for deletion. Let's trust that someone shall take it on in due time.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Keep Per Andrew D., a subject on which numerous books have been written is notable. Per WP:IMPATIENT, "nobody seems interested in expanding it" is not an argument for delete. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:30, 14 January 2017 (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.