Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon's breath

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. A move to Dragon's Breath (ammunition) or any other title can be discussed via WP:RM on the article talkpage (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon's breath

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

Was going to move this (it looks to typically be capitalized, and there are other "Dragon's Breath" titles such that a parenthetical would be warranted), but it doesn't actually look like it passes WP:GNG. Sources are generally to personal websites, commercial sites, and primary sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Possibly rename if there is a more technical name (which is not readily apparent to me). A number of states refer to these in their laws (e.g. [1] [2] [3]). Some book references - e.g. this Wiley book [4] (and quite a few hits in google-book on "dragon's breath" shotgun).Icewhiz (talk) 07:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the legislature mentions noted above might do it re notability. But I'd suggest renaming - "Dragon's breath (ammunition)"? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Should be renamed "Dragon's Breath (ammunition)" with capitalized "Breath"--RAF910 (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not seeing any argument about WP:GNG here. GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. None of the above provides significant coverage as defined at WP:N, and I've never seen anyone argue that because some city or state bans a particular item, that contributes to that item's notability. Anyone have any in-depth coverage? So far the best is a single paragraph of description in the Wiley book. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see coveragenin dozens of books - generally up tk a few paragraphs (pften 1) describing what this ammo is.Icewhiz (talk) 05:16, 13 February 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.