Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whistling round

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 Delete --JForget 02:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whistling round

Whistling round (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

not notable, and editors only remove notability tag and unref tag rather than provide refs or evidence of notability - unlikely to be fixed. Arthur 18:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• delete. This is not a garage band or porn-star that may raise notability concern. This is a type of ammunition, and people have right to know about it. We don't establish "notability" for door, clothespin, nail. These things exist and will exist beyound the will of wikipedians. However in this particular case the problem is absence of references, to minimally verify whether this term eally in use. `'Míkka 19:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless any references to whistiling rounds can actualy be found. If I search Google for "door" or even "garage door" or even "remote controled garage door"(yes, even if I misspell it like this), I find results. If I search for "Whistling ammunition" I find nothing, except from people on forums who ask if there are any, and replies of people that don't know of any, except specialy made movie ones. If I search for "whistling round" I find a lot of fiction of wind "whistling round" things. Google may not be the best search angine for ammunition (I don't know anything about ammunition), so if anyone CAN dig up sources, I have no objection. Else, give it the bullet. Martijn Hoekstra 19:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• delete or merge there are now quite a few little unsourced stub articles about specialty shotgun rounds that aren't very common. Many if not most of the articles were originally put there by an editor who was attempting to use wikipedia for promotion and included sales links to their web site. What remains of these articles should either be properly sourced, or removed, or perhaps the best solution to make one good all-inclusive article and delete all the stubs. Arthur 19:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, even if factual and historical this is a NN type of ammunition. No results found in Google Books other than incidental mentions of "whistling". --Dhartung | Talk 20:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete if and only if no references show up. Stifle (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as probable hoax. Artw 21:44, 6 November 2007 (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.