Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/.223 Wylde


 * 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The result was Nomination withdrawn" Based on the additions by u|Mike Searson, there appears to be enough coverage to get past GNG Niteshift36 (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

.223 Wylde

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. The product exists and there is some coverage in non-reliable sources, but most coverage I'm seeing in RS's is mentions or more of a product review sort of piece. The sole source used in the current article doesn't even mention this configuration to accept both cartridges. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 16:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 16:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete No multiple independent acceptable sources appear to be available - fails GNG, WP:ORGIND, and CORPDEPTH. And per nom, the only reference doesn't even mention this product. Steve Quinn (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep...I've found the following references with a simple google book search.    I'm sure there are many more I just stopped looking after the three. I've also found too many to count mentions. Perhaps, it would be better to rename the article to "Wylde chamber" and then rewrite the article accordingly. As the current name ".223 Wylde" does make it sound like a wildcat .223 caliber cartridge.--RAF910 (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Despite your implication that a search wasn't done..... it's not mentions that the subject is missing, it's significant coverage. Your first two examples are barely more than a mention. The third is a book reference saying that the has tested 2 rifles in the caliber. These sources confirm it exists, which isn't in dispute. What is lacking, still, is significant coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * KEEP 223 Wylde is a chamber dimension which splits the differences between both SAAMI and NATO ammo specifications allowing either 5.56 NATO or 223 Remington to be used in the rifle in question. More manufacturers are using this spec with their barrels than any other configuration on the civilian market so shooters can use either round. The incorrect non-SAAMI use of decimals preceding non-metric ammunition calibers may be why editors not familiar with firearms cannot find appropriate sourcing.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's great that it splits the difference. Some substantial coverage would be helpful. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah I'm sure the editors at Newsweek and The New York Times didn't exactly cover it to death. I'll see what I can come up with--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You're right, they probably didn't. Good thing for us that those aren't the only reliable sources around. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep as a notable chamber variant that allows for two widely used cartridges often for competition. Expand section on the chamber developer, Wylde, and copycat usage in other rifles that use similar technique to accomplishe the same objective (i.e. mini-14 ranch rifle that can chamber both rounds even though they are marked for one). --DHeyward (talk) 13:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC).
 * Are you going to do the expansion and add reliable third party sources? Or are you just going to driveby !vote and waste more time talking about editors than issues? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Disregard, someone else took care of what you merely talked about doing. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Note to closer Despite the very clear description on the first line, the nominator seems unable to distinguish a barrel marking/chamber design from an actual cartridge. It is not a cartridge or a caliber so there is a very good reason why a search for a cartridge yields nothing.  Competence is required and this is a nuisance nomination.  It's like nominating "adjustable wrench" for deletion because there are no sources to indicate any bolts that were specifically designed designed to fit it.  Time would have been better spent searching for the "any" key we are always supposed to press.  Or post a question instead of crusading against firearm knowledge in an encyclopedia. Google hits alone should have been a clue that is notable and independently manufactured as either complete barrels withe different profiles, materials and twist rates or rifles.  This is not a controversial article or anything other than an article describing what this particular specification is.  --DHeyward (talk) 13:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note to closer: The nominator does understand the difference, he just put it in simpler terms for the non-pedantic layman. The nominator also understands what significant coverage is and how this article lacks it, as well as how the number of Google hits has nothing to do with notability. Perhaps if spent times addressing those issues rather than using it to talk about an editor, there would be more firearms knowledge in this encyclopedia.Niteshift36 (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.