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. J04n( talk page) 14:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Signature weapon

Signature weapon (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

It has been quite a while since this article was nominated for deletion and none of the editors that voted to move this article and modify into a list article have followed through. It remains unsourced fancruft WP:SYNTH and WP:OR unsuitable for an article, and considering the vast majority of notable weapons are also signature weapons, it seems superfluous to the other lists of fictional weapons if they were pared down to only the notable ones. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 05:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Talk 06:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep I can't see any list, it seems to me to be a perfectly valid stub article giving notable examples of signature weapons. Prince of Thieves ( talk) 09:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete This is purely original work. Commendable, perhaps, yes, but also to be deleted. Where are the sources that make the subject "signature weapon" worthy of a Wikipedia article? Every phrase or term that we use in everyday language does not merit an article. This is appropriate for a dictionary; not an encyclopaedia. - The Gnome ( talk) 09:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC) reply
• delete I see that the "list" was no sooner moved per the last AfD than it was moved back (since it was never converted to a list). Really, this is severe fancruft: is there any armed character in history who does NOT have a weapon of choice? I'm sure we can find lots of people talking about how some character's weapons signifies something about them, but in a general article that's simply a second sentence. As it stands, this is an inferior entry in TVTropes. Mangoe ( talk) 15:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Caesar? Joan of Arc? Edward Teach, Gilgamesh? George Washington? Audie Murphy?-- Froglich ( talk) 11:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC) reply

The article should not be about giving examples of signature weapons - that's trivia and WP:SYNTH. The discussion is whether the CONCEPT of a "signature weapon" is at all encyclopedic, or merely a WP:DICDEF. It doesn't seem like it is. Even the people who have had signature weapons, are mainly recognized by their names and actions and not their weapons, which remain essentially trivia. It's mostly in fantasy universes where people have powerful magical weapons where it becomes relevant. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 20:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC) reply

"Fantasy universes" and what happens in them are not taboo subjects at Wikipedia, and your use of the word "mostly" concedes that there are real-world examples. But these are distractions, as it comes down to RS, and the article has a sufficient amount.-- Froglich ( talk) 22:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC) reply

There are numerous real world examples of signature weapons. Even more if you think people like King Arthur and Robin Hood were real. Prince of Thieves ( talk) 12:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply

• speedy delete For no other reason than that I want to see this miserably declining tragedy of the commons project hollow itself out as quickly as possible by deleting any and all things of tangential interest until only reliable-dinosaur-press-vetted political propaganda articles remains. So: Delete it! Hurry up! Kill them all....-- 31.220.44.228 ( talk) 21:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC) non-constructive comment struck. IP's only other edit was blatant vandalism. As sarcastic as the comment is, I feel it qualifies likewise. Prince of Thieves ( talk) 05:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The article presently meets the minimally required amount of sources. (I should point out to the AFD submitter that his own obscure articles are on equally thin ground, if not more so given that only industry trade press appears to be talking about that game level, as opposed to signature weapon being in common enough usage that some dozen or more articles here presently link to its page.-- Froglich ( talk) 11:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC) reply

This is off topic and getting more off topic

Let me remind you that this is a ad hominem attack - such things are not allowed on Wikipedia. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 17:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC) reply No it's not. You weren't even the subject.-- Froglich ( talk) 10:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC) reply He means ... the AFD submitter that his own obscure articles are on equally thin ground, if not more so ..., ad hominem's are generally making derogatory reference or veiled implied threats to another editor or their creations rather than objectively looking at the article in this AfD. -- Prince of Thieves ( talk) 12:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply Pointing out an equivalence is not an ad hominem attack. In any event, dwelling on the second sentence of my !vote commentary isn't grounds to overlook the first.-- Froglich ( talk) 22:21, 15 March 2018 (UTC) reply Um, that's the definition of an ad hominem attack. Ignoring the fact that the articles I made are mostly referenced from reliable sources while this one has no suitable sources (two are WP:GAMEGUIDE, the other is about Robin Hood specifically rather than the concept of a signature weapon), any kind of "well you edited/made an article that's worse!" is going past the debate and attacking directly an editor, since that article otherwise has nothing to do with the debate. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 00:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC) reply — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply Please point out exactly where I have "attacked" your personal characteristics or authority, or retract your accusation. --At no point have you been the subject during this conversation; however, your continued pressing of the matter is calling WP:COMPETENCE into question, and I note on your TP that you have recently had two "speedy" deletion attempts and one AdD overridden (items 36, 39, and 46 regarding Walden, AC6, and Tower of Latria), and am beginning to suspect that you just like trying to delete things regardless of their presumed lack of merit.-- Froglich ( talk) 10:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC) reply I !voted keep (obviously the article is valid) and still think you should avoid comments like the one I pointed out above. Making reference to the nominator own article as if to say "why are you doing this, your articles are worse", is subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. This is defined as ad hominem (which has a broad definition), and is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. I am happy to explain further on my talk page if you like, but I will hat this now. Prince of Thieves ( talk) 11:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep. There are enough sources outside the gaming/entertainment community to satisfy GNG, e.g. The Washington Post "Signature Weapons of War", The Telegraph "Orlando gunman used AR-15 assault rifle to kill his victims - the weapon of choice for mass shooters", Wired "$265 Bomb, $300 Billion War: The Economics of the 9/11 Era'S Signature Weapon". Clarityfiend ( talk) 22:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Pure WP:SYNTH - articles feature obviously different definitions of "signature weapon", the only thing they have in common is the definition of signature to mean distinctive. The encyclopedia article is obviously trying to be about the concept of signature weapons as used by individual people. I don't think the idea of mass shooters using signature weapons is notable enough for an article either though, nor is the idea of nations using them. This is because they never intended said weapons to be "signature", they were simply labeled that by the author of the piece. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 18:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Those both fit my idea of a signature weapon, which is a weapon closely associated with a person or character. Eg. Judge Dredd is always depicted with a Lawgiver. Robin Hood generally with a Longbow. Thor with his lightning-hammer Mjölnir (all viking age weapons were named, the value of a sword being greater almost anything else). Odin's spear is Gungnir, etc etc, there are hundreds of examples all of which can be reliably sourced. Prince of Thieves ( talk) 19:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep. there seems to be some question about what should be included, but that's a question for the talk page. If there are overlapping meanings, we can sort them out in the article. DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 23 March 2018 (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.