Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W41

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

W41

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

Delete. Non-notable armament. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I'd arge that being an officially designated U.S. nuclear weapon confers notability. And a very quick Google turns up sources; was this done before the nom? The stub is a mess though, but that can be dealt with without going to AfD... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:, also, the "W41" appears to have been the subject of Deepwater Horizon conspiracy theories, too. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: being a production-level nuclear weapon is notability enough, but the conspiracy theories add that yummy wiki-flavor (flavour for the benefit of the folks on the other end of the pond). Could use some expansion, but AfD is not for cleanup. bahamut0013^words _deeds 00:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A nuclear weapons program that was around for years, is notable. This isn't just a couple of guys hammering out some scrap metal in their garage. This is something quite major! Article now has references. Dream Focus 12:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^confabulate 19:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bushranger. Sources seem to establish notability. SnottyWong ^confabulate 19:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bushranger and DreamFocus. Nuclear weapons are notable. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "Number built 0", so no, not "a production-level nuclear weapon". A cancelled warhead for a cancelled missile system, lacking "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although the program was cancelled and the article is relatively short, it is now referenced with reliable sources which seem to establish notablity under the general notability guideline. Anotherclown (talk) 04:50, 5 February 2011 (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.