Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akimbo (firearms)

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 and rename to Dual wield (if some variation of this, such as dual wielding or dual-wield is more correct, please go ahead and re-rename it). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-19 11:37Z

Akimbo (firearms)

Akimbo (firearms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Akimbo (gaming) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

Article is uncited original research about holding a gun in each hand in a video game. I don't know what else to say about this. It's a mess, and it's entirely POV. Chris Griswold (☎☓) 08:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I admit that the article needs a massive improvement, but deleting it is going a bit overboard IMO. --Koveras ^☭ 09:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as original research. One source in the article, a book that mentions the word's origins but apparently nothing else (although if it does, now would be a good time to cite some of the rest of the article). Recury 20:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless references provided Looks like a really long article, but with no references for verification it could very well be original research. Delete unless some references provided. Dugwiki 23:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This is notable and frequently mentioned, shouldn't be deleted simply because it doesn't currently have references. Rather it should be improved. Mathmo ^Talk 06:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well, if it's "notable", then the article needs to include references to show that it's notable. It also needs to provide references to show it isn't original research. So go ahead an improve them, if you feel you have the sources. Dugwiki 16:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Article does need work, but is mostly accurate. I agree with Koveras that deletion is too extreme. SirBob42 01:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. This is apparently a slang term. Nothing in the article supports notability. If the article is so bad that it needs a massive improvement, then maybe deleting is a good starting point. Keeping an article that bad would itself be a bad precedent. Being notable is not the same as frequently mentioned. Vegaswikian 01:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 02:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete per the most excellent comments above. Otto4711 03:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I have played dozens of games with "Akimbo" gun modes, but I have never heard this term. I have heard of "dual wield" with the same meaning, in any case I do not see any reason to think that this is a notable slang term. The "dual wield" phenomenon however is a notable video game and movie concept but this article is not much of a starting point and the name is probably wrong. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Move/Rename - I agree with the above poster, "Dual wield" is the more common term, and should therefore be the name of the article after some edit-copying. If "akimbo" then redirects to this main article it would be more accurate. ◄Zahakiel► 04:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Daniel J Leivick. This is a NN variation of dual wield, which we should have an article for. --Dhartung | Talk 04:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Move Move to dual-wielding. It's easier to source and is more general than 'akimbo' as far as I can see. --Gwern (contribs) 05:57 14 February 2007 (GMT) 05:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Supporting Comment, I agree with the idea of moving to "Dual wielding". Mathmo ^Talk 07:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but expand to real-life and move to Dual wield. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Original research and incorrect use of the term "akimbo." Should be called "Yosemite Sam [1] position since he was famous for it before any of the games were introduced." Edison 16:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment - It's true enough that the cartoon character predated the games, but calling it the "Yosemite Sam Position" would introduce both notability and OR issues, since nobody actually calls it that - at least, no one who's used that phrase on a website reachable from a search engine (images by themselves would not contribute to an article without introducing POV commentary). The term dual wield can be verified, and is more popular and current than even the article's present name. ◄Zahakiel► 18:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, but vastly expand. Akimbo is an actual term that's used (3DRealms used it when talking about Duke Nukem Forever), and I actually came to this article wanting to learn more about it. ShadowMan1od 00:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, if that's the case, provide the references you're talking about in the article. Dugwiki 16:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or move to wikt:Akimbo — MrDolomite • Talk 18:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, It's worth keeping, but if you need you can merge to "Dual wield". MrMacMan 06:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep. It's interesting, and it's definitely a verifiable phenomena. Is it notable? I'm not sure, but I think that given what wikipedia does encompass a referenced article may be valuable. That or merge with Dual Wield (gaming). CredoFromStart 22:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Interesting games related article, seems verrifiable, could do with some improvement. Artw 03:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and expand with references. » K i G O E | talk 05:29, 19 February 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.