Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/6.5 Jonson

6.5 Jonson

6.5 Jonson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Article's subject matter is not notable. No info save the possible authors own site. WP:FAILN The article appears to be speculative. The citations failed to provide any information regarding the subject of the article nor were germane regarding the subject matter discussed. The article looks good but fails because there is nothing to write about as there is no information in the the available regarding the subject. Several claims are made, most unlikely none likely to be substantiated.

The cartridge is a project that has been in the works for some years. It is likely a pet project by Jonson vis a vis Jonson Arms. Apart from Jonson Arms no one seems too interested to discuss the topic or write about it.

Possible conflict of interest WP:COI

Possible sockpuppetry/meat puppetry

Please check Talk:7.62 Jonson regarding the latter two issues. DeusImperator (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Delete Yet another example of someone's personal project. Did a nice job on layout, but serious POV issues and nothing to establish notability, probably because there aren't any good sources. Also mostly just a cut and paste with 7.62 Jonson and 9mm Jonson AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. —AliveFreeHappy (talk) 21:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Trout DeusImperator & Keep Seriously DeusImperator? Adding a few dozen citiation needed tags to an article? The proper procedure is to add one top banner mentioning that it has little or no citations. I'm sure in the amount of time you took to add all those tags, you could have found the top banner, shaved, ate lunch, and watched something intersting on TV. Your trout is in the mail. As for the article, I'm sure with one or two passes by someone who knows hunting, the article will be in just as good of shape as any of the thirty other articles on lesser used ammunition. Look at List of rifle cartridges, most have their own pages. The fact that I can find sources means I am voting for a keep. I just don't know enough about the topic to be a useful editor on the page. Sven Manguard _Talk 06:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• Without commenting on the subject itself - 32 {{Citation needed}} for one screen of text is too much indeed. Was it worth the time? I don't care about the time wasted by the tagger, but he and people like him steal other editors' time. Editors have to take into account those who would happily tag any word, and effectively have to cite every word where one cite per paragraph would suffice. And then the readers complain about "a sea of footnotes". East of Borschov 09:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have attempted to clean this up. Where appropriate, I have given sections the Unreferenced Section template but in most cases each section had at least one reference anway so between these and the top banner, which I have also added, I think it's all covered. Hope that helps. As far as the article goes, I don't currently have an opinion as I don't know enough about rifle ammunition, or how it is usually dealt with on Wikipedia. I may do some research and come back if I change my view. --Korruski^Talk 11:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - the difference between this and the other minor cartridges is that they actually have sources that talk about them, such as COTW, etc. This article has 4 references none of which mentions the cartridge even in passing. The basic notability problem is at issue here - this is a pet project cartridge, not a commercial cartridge or notable wildcat. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Delete The article makes many claims which are unsupported. The claims the contributor regarding any numeric values should be supported. There is no evidence of that anywhere. Further to that, what is the Johnson Factor? And how would someone know whether it complies with this Johnson Factor if no one knows what this Johnson Factor could be. And as for the cites no cite provided even relates to the cartridge. Also, what has the Delta L problem got to do with this cartridge? Red herrings? Most of the cites are for areas which made claims which cannot be substantiated or were over reaching. Sorry about the over zealous cites though.

The other thirty or so cartridge are listed and written about and some form of media. However, 6.5 Jonson is listed nowhere. it is not a notable cartridge.

Unsubstantiated claims which were claimed that should be verified:

• It is a Benchrest cartridge or that it could be used as one: No evidence, pure speculation
• Great cartridge for anything it is chosen to do: No evidence, pure speculation, peacock
• It was inspired by three most important cartridge lines: First who says that those are the three most important cartridge lines? And who says this this cartridge is inspired by those cartridge lines?
• perfected ballistic profile, designated parallactic precision: Huh? I have read many legal briefs and know hoey when I see it.
• Several companies made cartridge clearly honoring Jonson Labs' earlier worK: Who says this? Which cartridges would this be?
• one proprietary round uses the exact nomenclature designated: Which one is that? who says?
• other manufacturers chose to contaminate the Jonson design: Who says that it got contaminate? What is the Jonson design?
• without a 30 degree shoulder, no round could ever match the characteristics and accuracy of a PPC round: FOOTNOTES #1&#2 Footnoted article does not actually support this claim. So what do we have 2 footnotes supporting this? Anyone actually read the articles cited? In fact neither say ANYTHNG about a 30 degree shoulder. So the fact is that even the footnotes do not support the claims. Red herrings?
• design is so efficient and forgiving that accuracy loads producing velocities in the 2-3000ft/s range are easily achieved: So efficient, so forgiving, mea culpa mea maxima culpa. What proof is there that it is efficient? What proof is there the it forgives sins :)?
• they remain the only pure example of the original, digitally-optimized round: Is there proof of this?
• use them effectively, in conjunction with portable computers... 1400 yd who says so?
• Claim regarding the 300 Savage footnote: Footnoted #3 No such claim made in the footnote regarding the Savage in the article.
• Adoption is an accepted practice in the gun world and one which manufacturers have used for decades to take advantage of the marketplace.: Footnote #4 No where does any article state this in the booklet. Or is it supposed to be that the whole booklet is a testament to such the claim and is being used as an example? I don't understand the use of that footnote.

None of the footnotes even provide evidence of what it is being cited for in the footnote let alone saying anything about the Jonson cartridge. Just because there are footnotes does anyone bother fact checking them? It is footnoted so it must be true. Heard that before. One of the best one (before it was removed) was the Delta L problem being listed for the cartridge; what a laugh. How could it even have a Delta L problem as neither CIP nor SAAMI have even published anything remotely regarding this cartridge (and I have access every single publication by both entities).

I have no doubt that the cartridge can be used to hunt. But is there evidence that it was used to hunt the specified species? And really how many hunters out there hunt with the Jonson cartridges? Not more than a maximum of 5 in total and I am being generous.

As for stealing editors time... Let me explain... No one can be stealing anything that is given away freely. So unless the wiki has chosen to pay an editor, you volunteer your time. If the wiki is stealing your time then find a place that does not steal your time.

DeusImperator (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 12:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

KEEP as deletion reasons not supported or referenced

• 1. The level of informational support required by the one person calling for deletion of articles on Jonson cartridges is not evidenced on any other cartridge article.
• 2. The reasons given for deletion are not supported or referenced and are themselves heresay. Where are the attacker's credentials? What are the underlying reasons for saying something is not true?
• 3. Why all the virulence in the comments in this discussion - leads one to assume there is an alternative motive in attacking this well-done article. In this particular case, the user has gone out of his way to attack an article, which subject he doesn't know anything about. Just because someone never heard of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist and is not a fitting wiki subject.

Please replace the 7.62 Jonson and 9mm Jonson articles until this discussion can be attended by persons without obvious bias

Addressing the reasons given for deletion and an admission that with help, this article can be made better.

First, the references at this top of this page cannot be verified because the 7.62 Jonson and 9mm Jonson articles have been deleted without complete discussion or verification and only the word of one person

• This is not a personal project but one whose contents have been vetted by the owner/invetor of Jonson Arms, a legitimate firearms and ammunition manufacturer with a current FFL and manufacturing facilities in two states. Just because somebody does not want to do the work to verify information does not make in untenable.
• There is massive interest in these cartridges, evidenced by the fact that Jonson firearms are made in the US and Australia and sold to customers. These are also numerous references to these cartridges in many firearms forums on the internet.
• The .30 caliber cartridge IS a benchrest round and was designed as such. The round was the first commercial computer generated rifle cartridge and this fact can be documented. The round was designed using the 6mm PPC round as a starting point with the collaboration of Ferris Pindell and Dr. Palmisano, the "inventors" of PPC technology, who could not make a .30 caliber version work. Does one need to reference every statement with manufacturer drawings to convince the wiki community that the statement is true? Take a look at the 6 mm PPC article on wiki. It states, "it [6mmPPC] is one of the most accurate cartridges available", referenced by an article written on a popular benchrest forum. Is an article written by a forum member now considered gospel?
• It IS a great cartridge for anything it is chosen to do - as a ballistics engineer and hunting aficionado, this is my expert opinion and shared by many users, whose comments could be reference but when are references necessary to back up a popular claim and when do reference become burdensome and unnecessary?
• Inspired by 3 most important cartridge lines. The American, British and German military cartridge lineages fit the description exactly.
• The cartridge was designed by a computer algorithm that Mr. Jonson named The Jonson Factor. This software and the results are proprietary but anyone interested could talk with Mr. Jonson if they wanted to ascertain the reasons the rounds exhibit "perfect ballistic profile" and I can also discuss this feature of the design, as I build the rifles myself. Parallactic precision is a laboratory term for the process and results of the experiments Jonson Arms Laboratories (another legitimate company) performed.
• During the 1990s, the Jonson rounds were discussed on rec.guns with Gale McMillan, John Lazzeroni, Rick Jamison, Zareh Ohanian, and others, all of whom built rounds based on the Jonson Factor, which was discussed at length on the board. The 7.62 Jonson was, during testing since 1978, called the 7.82 Jonson and this name was picked up and used by Mr, Lazzeroni, in 1997, to name his Patriot round. The documentation exists that can prove this statement and it has been shown me by the inventor. Again, did anyone ask John Lazzeroni for proof of his concept? I don't see anyone attacking the wiki article on his products.
• Again, the Jonson design is proprietary - the rounds designed from the original specs are all contaminated - those who disagree can run the ballistics on the rounds with any popular ballistics program and I can provide the cartridge names, which were left out of the article to avoid embarrassing or causing problems with those who bought these rounds and might not want to know. All this information can be added to the article if it is felt to be necessary.
• PPC rounds have a 30 degree shoulder. The shoulder angle can be proven mathematically to be a major accuracy feature of any round. Since the PPC rounds are the most accurate ever designed, which is a popular opinion and supported in wiki articles, a round designed from the PPCs with the same shoulder angle, no other round could match these characteristics. Again no research before making an attack on this statement.
• The round is efficient and this efficiency can be easily shown mathematically. Again, why does this statement need to be proved when it is so obvious to any ballistics aficionado? Some calculations would have answered this question.
• "remain the only pure example of...." is a statement made to me by the owner. Prove they aren't...
• The Australian manufacturer of Jonson firearms can repeat the 1400 yards statement by deposition if appropriate.
• Again, why is this use attacking a simple statement that these rounds were designed with elements that make .300 Savage a good round? The footnote is only so the Savage round can be read about and the elements considered, not "proof" of the statement...this information came from an interview with the inventor. Isn't it obvious that he would be the only one that could verify this statement?

• This last "Adoption" comment states the entire case for ignoring the attack on the Jonson rounds and keeping the articles. The plainly cited article on Remington's adoption of popular wildcats has not been read carefully by the attacker. In the article "Domesticated But Not Tamed" in the reference, Terry Wieland, a well-known gun writer, obviously writing in a Remington-sponsored magazine, states, "Adopting the brainchild of a basement handloader, producing it commercially and adding the name "Remington" has a long and wonderful history."

I will repeat that this is a one-person attack on articles that were well researched, written from interviews with the inventor/designer of the rounds, and it was expected that others would contribute to the efficacy of the information, not attack them for no reason and delete them from wiki for little reason and with no discussion, except his own comments.

Here's one as an example: None of the footnotes even provide evidence of what it is being cited for in the footnote let alone saying anything about the Jonson cartridge. Just because there are footnotes does anyone bother fact checking them? It is footnoted so it must be true. Heard that before. One of the best one (before it was removed) was the Delta L problem being listed for the cartridge; what a laugh. How could it even have a Delta L problem as neither CIP nor SAAMI have even published anything remotely regarding this cartridge (and I have access every single publication by both entities). See the Delta L note another wiki member made Talk:6.5 Jonson and you'll see this comment is bogus.

In fact, I should point out that the language and comments in the request for deletion are possibly against the wiki rules. Example: Thsi article is absolute bunk. The science is just more bunkem. This is just a well wrtten article about crap. Another article by a silly sycophant. There is little tact that articles such as this deserve. DeusImperator (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC) It's easy to see how vehement the attacker was at the time of the attack...the entry written with typos and grammar that would have been caught had haste and misplaced anger not been part of the comment. This person should not have the power to arbitrarily influence and delete articles written in good faith. Meksikatsi (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• Commment and above in this response you see the basic problem. The claims above are based on personal knowledge, original research, etc. The core issue of notability and reliable sources is not addressed, which is the reason the cartridge is listed for deletion. If you're aware of reliable sources we can use to substantiate claims in the article and establish notability, then please provide them. But note that "talking to the inventor", "in my expert opinion", forums, etc don't do this. First check the guidelines at WP:RS and then let's improve the article. If sources to establish notability cannot be found, then deletion is appropriate. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment I agree there might be areas that depend on "talking with the inventor" in this article, however, an article should not be deleted because parts of it are not reliably sourced. My comments on the Talk:6.5 Jonson page address this point. DeusImperator complains that the author references Delta L as not being applicable to the Jonson rounds as they are not CIP or SAAMI registered. Delta L does not only refer to CIP and SAAMI registered cartridges, so is this error alone on the part of DeusImperator enough to disqualify him from commenting on the article? No. Then why should an entire article be deleted on the basis that some of the article's comments are not referenced. Take out the offending comments, sure. But deleting, without proper discussion over time, entire articles that refer to actual, commercially-viable rifle rounds should not happen.

For my personal edification, how would one reference comments in an interview from an inventor? If these articles are deleted, then I agree with meksikatsi that the 6 mm PPC article should go also, for some of the same reasons, for forum articles are not reliable references and that article relies on them. 100%BulletProof TALK 17:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)