Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airrow A-8S Stealth: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:38, 9 May 2011

Airrow A-8S Stealth

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

Series of orphaned, dead-end articles on air rifles and pistols lacking any references consisting completely of original research. Might be appropriate for a product section within articles on individual manufacturers that meet notability guidelines but these products do not rise to level of notability warranting a dedicated article for each of these:

RadioFan (talk) 03:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —œ ^™ 08:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —œ ^™ 08:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. —œ ^™ 08:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge, At least one is worth keeping: Girandoni Air Rifle, but the rest would probably be better off merged into List of air guns to make that a more detailed list with short summaries of each air gun. Seems a laborious task but a much better option than wiping out all this content. -- œ ^™ 07:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even summarized and merged, references are going to need to be identified and used. wikipedia is not a publisher of original research.--RadioFan (talk) 10:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But unreferenced is not a reason to delete. All this content is still encyclopedic, and is verifiable. References can be added in time, material challenged and likely to be challenged can be removed. I'm not seeing much OR in these, mostly just short descriptions of the guns. -- œ ^™ 11:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Merging the kind of short descriptions you mention would be a good outcome here. My earlier comment was just a (poorly worded) reminder that references still need to be there, especially any technical details, without a verifiable source for this information, that's OR.

KEEP ALL. At most there are only two that I can see that could be deleted and they should be nominated separately. A lot of work has gone in to these articles and there are a number of start class articles in here. There are also some interesting historical articles with photographs of 100+ year old air rifles. A lot of work has gone in to these and the "right to bear arms" applies since many meet WP:GNG. Obviously, some require more references but it isn't fair to nominate these articles en masse. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 10:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The amount of effort put into these articles, by one editor in particular, how interesting they are, or how old the subjects are do not excuse them from Wikipedia requirements and guidelines, particularly notability and verifiability. It's not at all clear how these articles might meet notability guidelines as they few that have any references use primary sources or fan forums as references. The only claim of notability in any of them is that they are old which is not sufficient to meet WP:GNG.--RadioFan (talk) 10:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many have also been used by the American military and in notable wars. Also, with regards to WP:EFFORT, it may not excuse the author from following certain guidelines, (and I'm not saying this is why they all should be kept) but recognizing and giving due consideration to the amount of effort a user puts into improving the project helps the community as a whole, because it allows us to retain editors instead of driving them away (and it looks like almost all of these were in fact created by the same user, Yunnuy (talk · contribs) who may not even be aware all his creations are at risk of deletion.. I've left him a note on his talk page). Indeed I'm glad this was brought up, as it seems editor retention is more important now than it ever was before: see the recent 'call to action' from the Foundation, urging us to "increase community awareness", and "work with colleagues to reduce contention and promote a friendlier, more collaborative culture, including more thanking and affirmation". Sorry for the spiel -- œ ^™ 12:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm half-temped to suggest keeping simply because I dislike mass nominations (especially seeing List of air guns here). However, in the spirit of AGF, I will consider more closely if the nominator assures us all that he (she?) took the time to study each article at length for any redeeming qualities, searched for sources to prove notability, and attempted to improve. bahamut0013^words _deeds 20:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 39: / Line 39: @@
 :*'''Comment''' The amount of [[WP:EFFORT|effort]] put into these articles, by one editor in particular, how [[WP:INTERESTING|interesting]] they are, or how [[WP:OLDAGE|old]] the subjects are do not excuse them from Wikipedia requirements and guidelines, particularly [[WP:GNG|notability]] and [[WP:V|verifiability]].  It's not at all clear how these articles might meet [[WP:GNG|notability guidelines]] as they few that have any references use primary sources or fan forums as references.  The only claim of notability in any of them is that they are [[WP:OLDAGE|old]] which is not sufficient to meet [[WP:GNG]].--[[User:RadioFan|RadioFan]] ([[User talk:RadioFan|talk]]) 10:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 ::*Many have also been used by the American military and in notable wars. Also, with regards to [[WP:EFFORT]], it may not excuse the author from following certain guidelines, (and I'm not saying this is why they all should be kept) but recognizing and giving due consideration to the amount of effort a user puts into improving the project helps the community as a whole, because it allows us to retain editors instead of driving them away (and it looks like almost all of these were in fact created by the same user, {{user1|Yunnuy}} who may not even be aware all his creations are at risk of deletion.. I've left him a note on his talk page). Indeed I'm glad this was brought up, as it seems editor retention is more important now than it ever was before: see the recent '[[strategy:May 2011 Update|call to action]]' from the Foundation, urging us to "increase community awareness", and "work with colleagues to reduce contention and promote a friendlier, more collaborative culture, including more thanking and affirmation". <small>Sorry for the spiel</small> -- [[User:OlEnglish|<font size="5">&oelig;</font>]][[User talk:OlEnglish|<sup>&trade;</sup>]] 12:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
+*'''Comment''': I'm half-temped to suggest keeping simply because I dislike mass nominations (especially seeing [[List of air guns]] here). However, in the spirit of AGF, I will consider more closely if the nominator assures us all that he (she?) took the time to study each article at length for any redeeming qualities, searched for sources to prove notability, and attempted to improve. '''[[User:Bahamut0013|<span style="background:#2F4F4F;color:#FFF;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> bahamut0013</span>]]'''<span style="background:#DCDCDC"><small>[[User talk:Bahamut0013|<sup style="color:#000;margin-left:-1px">words</sup>]][[Special:Contributions/Bahamut0013|<sub style="color:#000;margin-left:-16px">deeds</sub>]]</small></span> 20:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)