Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blunt instrument

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 no consensus‎. It looks to me like clarification of the article's scope, and perhaps a rename, is in order. If that discussion fails, feel free to relist. asilvering (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blunt instrument

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:DICDEF, being mostly a definition of what a "blunt instrument" is and some examples. Wikipedia is not a phrasebook and therefore unless something can be found to demonstrate its standalone notability, it probably shouldn't remain as an article. While I have a feeling blunt weapon may be notable, nothing in particular from this article is salvageable so it would have to be created from scratch anyway. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, History, Military, and Technology. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or atleast not delete Codonified (talk) 11:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since the term "blunt instrument" can have multiple uses (in espionage, for example), this article makes little sense. Leaning toward Delete at this time. Intothat darkness 16:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don’t think this is a DICDEF fail - it’s not about the phrase blunt instrument, it’s just about the weapon in the context of criminology. It’s just a stub. And if the title is the issue that can be changed, so I don’t think the reasons above are good for deletion (though I think blunt instrument is actually the better title). This is not at all a TNT case. Will look for sources later - I would guess there is enough in criminology sources to pass GNG and I don’t know where else we’d cover this so it’s not a NOPAGE situation. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so... that just makes it a criminology term. Same difference. Wikipedia is also not a legal handbook either, so WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies. There has to be multiple RS discussing blunt instruments as they relate to law, and right now the only source is not about blunt instruments, but blunt force trauma, which can be caused by things other than blunt instruments such as transportation fatalities. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic everything is a DICDEF violation. Yes, which is why I said I would look for sources later, and why I did not vote yet. WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not apply: this is not data, a plot summary, lyrics, or lists of software updates (the examples it gives!), or anything analogous to that. Stubs are not a violation of INDISCRIMINATE. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article as it stands is not a definition, and you would not find anything similar in scope to this article in a dictionary, phrasebook or legal handbook. The literal (rather than figurative) definition at Wiktionary is a single sentence long, for example. A dictionary would not place the term in wider context, contrasting other categories of weapon in the same classification framework, or contrasting the perspectives of different disciplines such as criminology or medicine. The list of commonly improvised blunt instrument weapons is also highly undictionary-like. WP:DICDEF doesnt work, Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE doesn't work either because information in context is not indiscriminate. Also not data as User:PARAKANYAA mentions, but thats two ways that Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE isn't applicable. 似た牌愛魔 (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or at least not delete. This information should exist somewhere onwiki, though I'm not sure that it is best served as its own page. A merge would be better, but I can't think of a target.

Some sources I found quickly, I can look for more if you want:

Information on the considerations of attacks resulting from this kind of weapon is encyclopedic. No opposition to a merge or appropriate redirect later PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These seem to indicate to me a merge to blunt trauma would be best, maybe creating an "in crime" or "inflicted by weapons" section because it extends to other accidents besides criminal acts. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would be fine by me, though it may fit awkwardly there, unsure. I just feel strongly that information about this concept should go... somewhere. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to blunt trauma, because virtually anything hard, from baseball ball to candlestick to 4x4 to riffle butt may serve as a "blunt instrument" of an assault and the term is used almost exclusively as a catch-it-all term in context of traumas when the actual object is not identified. --Altenmann >talk 18:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. The article is more or less about everyday objects that can be used to bash someone. Article has existed for 18 years and notability has yet to be shown. Could redirect to Weapon, as the 2nd paragraph there says "ordinary objects such as sticks, rocks, bottles, chairs, and vehicles can be used as weapons", and blunt instruments are mentioned in the Weapon#Types section. Nurg (talk) 08:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've bulk-added a handful of academic sources, of various degrees of SIGCOV. May need more careful pruning. Not to WP:WHATABOUT this, but we have an article for each of the other 18 weapon types listed in Weapon#By_function. I have no doubt there are sources beyond the ones I've just added. This needs work, not BLAR. Owen× ☎ 17:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I just noticed most of the sources I added were already found by PARAKANYAA... Owen× ☎ 17:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, no consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hoping one more week will draw new comments....
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 22:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to Blunt weapon, which seems to be the WP:COMMONNAME of this subject per third party sources; such a new title would encapsulate the current scope of the article. (I don't believe that WP:TNT applies here if the article title is changed to clarify its scope.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would second this. "Blunt instrument" has a number of different meanings outside the limited weaponry definition being discussed here. Intothat darkness 19:34, 31 December 2024 (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.