Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AIL Storm


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric  13:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

AIL Storm

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Duplication of Jeep J8 with some commercial (and nationalistic) propaganda added along with some good content. Nuke, or merge to J8. Anmccaff (talk) 15:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   FITINDIA   15:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.   FITINDIA   15:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge & Delete, along to lines as suggested by nom. Covered in the Jeep J8 article as noted above and RS cited NPOV information can be added thereto. WP:CFORK applies. I realize that this article passed GA at some point. I don't know why all was not just included in the Jeep 8 article, which is not lengthy. Kierzek (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC) Ok, Hawkeye7, convinced me, change to Keep. Kierzek (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. The rationale provided is wrong. The J8 is actually based on the sufa\storm series, and is actually just storm3, without storm1 and storm2 - produced and used for more than 20 years before the J8. If at all the merge target should be reversed. J8 was concieved to export the Storm3 to additional markets. The Sufa\Storm itself is based on various (per version) Wranglers, but is highly modified, armored and armed for military missions. Both articles could use toning down of PROMO, but they aren't horrible.Icewhiz (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. As explained by, the AIL Storm is NOT a duplication of Jeep J8, and was available decades earlier. The J8 is merely the equivalent of Storm Mark III. -- IsaacSt (talk) 08:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, no -although I agree that merging the j-8 in is also a valid option. Neither of these are fundamentally based on AIL designs; they are militarized Jeep Wranglers, and re-militarized CJs with some AIL bells and whistles added. Very different, say, from the AIL continuation of the Dodge Power Wagon, where, toward the end of production, there were substantial differences between the ancestor and the progeny, and not just in superficial appearance.  The AIL Jeep stuff, on the other hand, has constantly drawn from ongoing Jeep evolution. Anmccaff (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * By this rationale we should merge Boeing P-8 Poseidon into the 737, as well as countless other military aircraft variants (same airframe and engines, military role achieved with system integration). The Sufa is based on the Wrangler (all be it not a standard one, e.g. mixing chasis and engine generations) - but adds armor (in some versions alot of armor), weapons, communications and other military adaptations. The resulting military veihcle is not equivelant to the commercial base type.Icewhiz (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Civilian AIL models have been sold or proposed, which often included none of the militarized bells-n-whistles; are you suggesting they are not the same vehicle?
 * Also, hardened variants of most military vehicles seem to be treated with the parent. Most armored variants of the HMMWV are covered with it.  Armed and unarmed versions of M151s and M35s are treated as a single subject, as is hardened vs stock.  Why should this be an exception? Anmccaff (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The Wrangler is a civilian veihcle to begin with, not military. The comparison to military (and civilianized versions of) M151 and HMMWV is not in place. While using the engine and chasis (with modifications) everything on top of the chasis is different here. The civilian Sufa (which has not been sold in great numbers if at all as new, though used military units have been put up for sale, I think) is quite a different beast than the Wrangler. The wrangler is used here as a plarform, just as List of Volkswagen Group platforms, and we keep each civilian variant article based on the same platform, even if the differences is mainly finishings. In the case of a militarized veihcle the differences are much much greater. The car body is totally different. The finshings inside are different. The whole thing is much more rugged, armor, weapon mounts, etc.Icewhiz (talk) 04:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The Dodge Power Wagon, the International Scout, the Chevrolet Suburban and the Landrover all began as civilian vehicles; several made the transition to military almost seamlessly.
 * A glance at the Storm is enough to demolish the claim that The car body is totally different. It's a knockdown kit; in some versions all parts interchange. Anmccaff (talk) 05:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * All sources I've looked at - say this is beyond a knock down kit (at least for Storm1 and Storm2 which were more widely produced). The military versions of Chevrolet Suburban have their own article Commercial Utility Cargo Vehicle - despite being essentially the same except for a paint job and some fittings. Same for multiple Land Rovers - e.g. Land Rover 101 Forward Control, Land Rover 1/2 ton Lightweight, Land Rover Wolf, Snatch Land Rover, Land Rover Perentie - some of which are not much more than a paint job and some fittings on a civilian model - done by Land Rover itself. The Sufa - is a mix and match of different Wrangler bits - Sufa1 was a mix of a CJ-6/CJ-8 wheelbase with Jeep Wrangler YJ engine and other bits. The body itself (and internal fittings - very robust and very-very basic and austere) is locally manufactured and has many variants - you can see some variants here - . The up-armored versions are completely different beasts - adding significant armor weight and different suspension.Icewhiz (talk) 06:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

{od}The military versions of Chevrolet Suburban have their own article Commercial Utility Cargo Vehicle Umm, no, that's a Chevy Blazer, roughly, and I'd be quite happy to entertain the idea of putting most of the material in the Blazer article. The conflation of 880 series with CUCVs proper is a problem as it is.

despite being essentially the same except for a paint job and some fittings...i.e., despite being quite similar to the overwhelming bulk of Storms, as... your cite rather clearly suggests. Aside from the rather unfortunately labeled Sufashi’t, these are either pure Jeep, or jeep with a modified nose. The differences in suspension are all well within what a fleet customer could feasibly request, semi-stock.

Essentially, your argument seems to boil down to "other junk exists". No, painting something a different, matte, color doesn't make something different enough to justify its own article...although claiming that a cab-over forward control truck is somehow the same as a standard Landrover (give or take) simply because of the shared name seems a little questionable. Anmccaff (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Given rationale above. -- Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  17:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Icewhiz, there's nothing wrong with creating a separate article on a variant. This is sanctioned by WP:SPLIT, a policy, so WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not apply here. I think the record for an item of military hardware is held by DC-3, where there is even a List of Douglas DC-3 family variants that lists the separate articles on variants. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with a good many things, but that isn't to say they are the best idea, either. So far, I've seen no argument here why the overwhelming bulk of these vehicles shouldn't be treated as what they are: very minor variants of CJs and Wranglers. Anmccaff (talk) 16:50, 30 June 2017 (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.