Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AO-222


 * 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   delete. Consensus seems clear amidst the fragmented discussion below. I can provide the information here if anyone does look into merging. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

AO-222

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There's a wikia page on a Nikonov_AO-222, which does show a gun called Nikonov AS (AO-222) in some museum. The Nikonov AS that was actually submitted to official trials (pictured in Monetchikov, p. 194) looks well-enough like that Wikia-page prototype, except it's fed from the bottom, not from the right side. The Polish source (pl:Nowa Technika Wojskowa) says this right-fed gun was "prototype 4" of the AS. Anyway, this AO-222 doesn't appear to be notable enough for its own page, because it was just an early factory prototype of the AN-94, not even the Nikonov AS that was submitted for army trials. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I got myself a copy of the 2002/3 Polish magazine. There are a whole bunch of pictures of the early prototypes of the AN-94; even those by Nikonov look pretty different from the AN-94, e.g. the first two of his prototypes (called NA-2 and NA-4) were bullpup designs. And after prototype 4 (AO-222), there are pictures with five more Nikonov prototypes (labeled 5-9 by the Polish source, all with different original tags like WS-229, PU-192, OK-158, MA-49, or MA-50. A coupe more PA-33 and 6P33 are mentioned as AS[M] prototype 10 and 11, but with no pictures.) All pretty interesting info, but I don't see why a separate article is needed for each one. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

So I'm officially including NA-2 and NA-4 in this nomination, for the same reason: factory prototypes of Nikonov (NS, eventually N-94), that don't need a separate page, lulzy picture notwithstanding. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Argh: People who !vote do not seem to parse this far down my nomination, and/or do not express an opinion about these, so they should probably be dealt with separately. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot to use plural Ansh666 17:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed! Ansh666 22:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I should also note that AS-1, which was added here, is simply the unofficial name of the first prototype of the AS series leading to AN-94; this gun was given the ad-hoc number of prototype number 3 in the Polish source; there is a table at the end of the 2002/4 magazine article which makes this clear. I can see a case for a separate page for the NA-2 and NA-4 combined perhaps, because they need somewhat different categories of Category:Bullpup firearms and Category:Bullpup rifles, although they haven't even been added to those... After looking at some guidelines, it seems that additional categories can be added to redirects, as described in Categorizing redirects, so [desirable] categories alone are not a reason to retain the NA-2 and NA-4 pages in their current form. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Does not meet Wiki notability requirements. The main sources of information on the internet for this firearm seems to be Wikipedia itself or a Wiki mirrors. All of which are based on a single caption photograph of a prototype rifle from an unknown source. The photograph itself is also appears to be close up of the the right side of the receiver, it could be anything. There is simply no way of knowing if the information is correct. No matter, even if the information is correct the AO-222 appears to be just one of 100,000's of dead-end prototype firearms and does not meet Wiki notability requirements --RAF910 (talk) 01:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - all fail WP:GNG per above. Ansh666 07:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

As for the NA-2 and NA-4 I also vote for deletion as they are not notable and certainly not deserving of their own pages. Both are dead end prototypes. Both articles consist of only two sentences. If the Armalite AR-15, a real production rifle that evolved into the M16 and semi-auto Colt AR-15 does not merit its own page, then the NA-2 and NA-4 most certainly do not.--RAF910 (talk) 22:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have rewritten a single stub, Nikonov NA-2 and NA-4 about both of these with the available information, which is a bit more than what was present when I nominated them for deletion. It should be possible to merge it to AN-94 at some point, but the target article is rather sketchy right now, so there's hardly room for the additional infobox. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

If you want to merge the NA-2 and the NA-4 with the AN-94 that would be fine with me. However, the NA-2 and NA-4 are not notable enough to have their own article. As, stated above, "If the Armalite AR-15, a real production rifle that evolved into the M16 and semi-auto Colt AR-15 does not merit its own page, then the NA-2 and NA-4 most certainly do not."--RAF910 (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The AR-15 has its own page (and also AR-15 variants), as does the CAR-15 and M4 carbine. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The Armalite AR-15 does not have its own page...Read it again. The AR-15 page that you are referring to is devoted to the semi-auto Colt AR-15. The Armalite AR-15 is select-fire rifle that predates both the U.S.G.I. M16 and Colt AR-15, and is only mentioned within the body of those articles. In a way you sort of made my point for me...The NA-2 and the NA-4 do not merit their own page and should be mentioned only within the body of the AN-94 article. Frankly, I don't believe that they should be mentioned at all, as they are both nothing more than one gun prototypes. If we accept the notion that prototype firearms are notable. Then we will have to accept tens of thousands of one gun prototype articles from manufacturers and gunsmiths that nobody has ever heard of before, simply because they have a patent or they were mentioned (in passing) in an obscure magazine article.--RAF910 (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2013 (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.