Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/6.5 Jonson

6.5 Jonson

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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

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.
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?

Fixed with a proper source - now if we could just do the same here. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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.
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 supported in wiki articles, a round designed from the PPCs with the same shoulder angle, no other round could match these characteristics.
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.
The Australian manufacturer of Jonson firearms supports the 1400 yards statement.
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. 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. Meksikatsi (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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, as AliveFreeHappy has noted, and that article relies on them. 100%BulletProof TALK 17:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just about parts not being sourced, the basic issue is notability. IE we have to establish notability per WP:Notability, which we have failed to do. Re interviewing an editor, you can't reference such comments - it's not allowed. see WP:OR. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re the commetns about the 6 mm PPC article you might want to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It's not a useful argument in deletion discussions. Note however that the 6ppc article does not RELY on forum sources, it has load data from a national vendor, and an article from a well known gun author to establish notability. That's what we're looking for here. If you can just take the effort you're putting into this and focus on finding such sources, we could all move forward and keep the article. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not putting that much effort in although others are. I can support the article author and provide some other references, as in the Australian article I just added. But I repeat that I believe the other Jonson cartridge articles should be put back up until a time where it's obvious there are no other references to be made and to let the author fix what is wrong. Putting an article up for AfD and deleting it in the same month without any input from the author or other contributors doesn't seem to be serving the wiki community.

I do see your point on the OtherStuffExists rule but my point was that not all the info in the Jonson articles is undocumented. I think that you can get rid of the offending material without destroying an entire article about an existing and commercially manufactured rifle cartridge and weapons. 100%BulletProof TALK 19:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So just to clarify additionally, the fact the something exists doesn't qualify it for a wikipedia article, which may be where the confusion is coming from. It's about notability. The articles went through the community approved deletion process and while they can be recreated, doing it without addressing the core notability issue will result in them just being deleted again. Let's get the sources figured out on this one if possible, and then look at next steps. If you can find the proper references that show it's notable and the others as well, I'll be happy to provide assistance. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Delta L problem does not apply to this cartridge if one were to look at the min. max chamber dimensions provided it is when the cartridge max published size is greater than the chamber min size published. So how would there be a Delta L problem here? Who published this dimensions? And if it is a wildcat cartridge a Delta L issue is a non-issue because a Delta L issue is ever present. But no one is going to run around screaming Delta L problem Delta L problem Delta L problem. IT IS A GIVEN! If it is a proprietary cartridge the cartridge owner exercises control over reamers etc. so it should not be an issue unless company is unable to maintain and produce equipment to the correct tolerances. All equipment would have to be purchased form Jonson for this cartridge and if the cartridge was not to fit in the chamber who's problem is that? The Delta L is not mentioned in the article but just added whimsically to the references. Someone with a modicum of intelligence removed it as there was nothing in the article talking about it anyway.

I stand by the statement I made regarding the footnotes. None of the 4 mentioned support what they are cited for let alone talk about the 6.5 Jonson. The values referenced by Footnote #1 Where the heck does Layne Simpson talk about the Jonson cartridge in the article 20th Century Top Cartridges does he give any values regarding velocity for the info box? And if foot note #1 is used what is it attempting to cite?

What is the Jonson factor? What is the algorithm. What it is should be defined in some manner or removed. DeusImperator (talk) 21:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delta L CAN refer to the difference between CIP and SAAMI specs for cartridges but it can also refer to general problems associated with chamber fit due to specification differences. In fact the wiki primary definition is "The delta L problem (ΔL problem) is a condition that occurs regarding certain firearms chambers and their practical incompatibility with ammunition made for the corresponding chambering." In the case of Jonson products, several reamer manufacturers around the world, including Manson Precision Reamers and Clymer Manufacturing Co. in the US, Lipawsky Tools in Belgium, and Morgan Tooling & Measurement in Australia, have been licensed to make Jonson reamers and/or dies for the rounds. In the US, Redding is exclusively licensed to make Jonson dies and can sell anyone die sets for making Jonson rounds as long as Jonson Labs approves the purchase. These diverse sources provide the differences in manufacturing that introduce the Delta L problem to users of Jonson rounds, especially as users can make their own cases from forming die sets made in different countries, with different measurement systems and different tooling. As I understand it, all Jonson products come with specifications from the individual licensees due to these system differences.

It seems the Layne Simpson citation was removed by the author when he removed the part of the article it was in, so that is no longer an issue.

How do you define or come up with a citation about a proprietary piece of software? The company explains this on their web site and as far as I know they can call their process anything they like. This issue is repeated in the Winchester Short Magnum entry. Although most cartridge aficionados recognize the chain of events that took place as the .300 WSM was being developed, the article states that Winchester came up with the round independently of outside influence. Come on. In any case, if a statement about a software program written by Jonson Labs isn't allowed, then any reference to how a manufacturer comes up with products would have to be disallowed, since the technology isn't about to be shared, much less documented publicly to be cited. (Yes, I realize I am flrting with OTHERSTUFFEXISTS here). All of this has been removed from the article so it no longer applies anyway. 100%BulletProof TALK 16:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cartridge volume, pressure, barrel length, bore friction and propellant are the only considerations as far as bullet velocity is concerned. Whatever is claimed by this Jonson factor would have to follow real world physics. Unless something magical/supernatural is happening inside this cartridge none of these velocity values claimed are approachable. The article is written to increase interest in the cartridge which has no prior notability going for it.

I have run the capacity numbers and have come up with the following a the absolute chamber volume of (minus the base volume) the 6.5 Jonson and found this value in grains H2O capacity of 102.4431124 for the 6.5 Jonson. The volume of the .264 Winchester Mag Absolute volume above the belt rim gives 101.9756434 grain of H2O. Obviously if one understands the measurement the .264 Winchester Mag will actually hold about 10 grains more if the volume is calculated in the same manner as the 6.5 Jonson was when not accounting for belt rim volume. So quite a bit extra credit has been provided for the 6.5 Jonson. So following the PV=nRT and F=PA how could the 6.5 Jonson provide a higher velocity than the .264 Win mag given equal pressures (not looking a propellant factors)? Oh that is right MAGIC or in this case the Magic Jonson Factor!!!

I respectfully point out that your calculations are incorrect, which might be influencing your thinking about the cartridges. I have these rounds in LFAD and QL and they predict 83.8 gr. H2O and 84.7 gr H2O respectively. To corroborate, I measured an actual 7.62 Jonson case and my digital scale says it contains 84.5 gr. H20. If you have QL you can put the cartridge dimensions in the program and run the math for the 140 gr Nosler Partition and easily get 3200 fps out of a 24" barrel. It would be quite simple for the company to claim whatever number [was there before it was removed] by simply increasing the length of the test barrel. What attracted me to these rounds in the beginning was their efficiency, which must come from the design. What is efficiency? I encourage you to use a ballistics program and play around with cartridge length. It doesn't seem to matter how LONG you make these rounds (therefore increasing case capacity); as long as you keep the basic parameters the same the velocity numbers will not change dramatically. If that's magic, then QL is predicting it. 100%BulletProof TALK 16:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

READ what I wrote. "absolute chamber volume of (minus the base volume)". Yes the actual overflow volumes are much lower but that calculation was shown to gauge (in the absence of an actual cartridge) the volume. QL is based on VOLUME. They do not make a magical calculations for "their design". LOL. The use the max overflow - bullet shank volume below case mouth and then using the density of the powder find out how much powder it can hold. AND if you bothered reading the disclaimer it says "W A R N I N G. The data provided by QL CANNOT be used as a substitute for information gained from standard handloading manual references; further; it CANNOT used as a substitute for conventional handload development.... " All emphasis theirs not mine." as for "It doesn't seem to matter how LONG you make these rounds (therefore increasing case capacity); as long as you keep the basic parameters the same the velocity numbers will not change dramatically" is true for ANY cartridge not just for your doo-dad. A 300 Win mag burns 25% more powder but produces an increase of around 10% more velocity than the 30-06 and the 300 is a fatter cartridge. The .284 win and the 280 have the same volume but the .284 if fatter design and the velocity is about the same. Equal usable case capacity provides equal velocity if pressures and (powder power factors are equal. The faster a bullet is driven the greater the inefficiency. There is no magic in design. On the Wiki, I too have written BS such as this just because it is repeated in the gun rags so often even though as a physicist I would consider such claims are mostly bunk (very little efficiency can actually be gained at the dimensions of cartridges below 2%), it is NOT my opinion that counts, REMEMBER YOU ARE NOT THE PRIMARY SOURCE NOR DO YOU "INTERVIEW" YOURSELF AS A SOURCE (or even others). All information must be sourced and if enough sources keep repeating the falsehood it "can" be written into the Wiki. Remember the wiki is an encyclopedia if you want to compose an ode to your doo-dad, or sing its praises there are far better venues for that than the Wiki. Reliable sources are a must.

As for influencing my thinking, The only factors here are the pure and utter drivel written by you before the article originator deleted the most of it. The cartridge is insignificant and not noteworthy. And as your stated you do have a WP:COI issue. The references had nothing to do with the article etc. Those are the issues here.

Comment there is a lot of back-and-forth re various issues, but the core issue of notability is still a problem. As an example, I queried google for the broader topic of "Jonson Arms" to see what I could find. Under books and scholar, I get zip. Using web with parameters to avoid wikipeida and the jonson website, there are very few hits, and many are echoes of wikipedia, and most are not related at all. Similar is true for "7.62 Jonson" with most being echoes of wikipedia or forums, nothing in the first few pages that could be even close to WP:RS. Ditto for "6.5 Jonson". AliveFreeHappy (talk) 23:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Jonson Labs has requested not to be associated with the wiki article under discussion so I believe that should be the end of the discussion. This excerpt from an email to me makes the issue crystal clear. “The company bases our decision on the possibility of negative repercussions with regard to information, with little or no factual representation, disseminated to the public due to the discussion being held on Wikipedia Projects. 100%BulletProof TALK 17:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]