Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AO-62 assault rifle


 * 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

AO-62 assault rifle

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable Soviet/Russian firearms. Only in-article references are in Russian so I'm not sure what to make of them; failed to find reliable sources, though a Russian-language search may help. Created by a User:Ctway sock. ansh 666 03:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666  03:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666  03:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ansh 666  03:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

DELETE...one of a kind prototype, nothing more than firearms trivia.--RAF910 (talk) 10:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment As we can't read Russian, we can't determine if the Russian sources are good or not. This means we can't delete until we get somebody who can qualify the sources. We need a failure to meet notability guidelines in order to delete it, not just based on a hunch or personal preference. DeVerm (talk) 00:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, the source on the Slostin article is a dead link to a primary source; the other two are Russian print magazines, and, though I don't have access to the articles themselves, from the translated titles they aren't very promising (likely just trivial mentions). ansh 666 00:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is that I don't think we should delete articles on things that we "think are likely". We need facts. DeVerm (talk) 13:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * We could find some sources from Russian version, such as Шквал свинца: советский многоствольный пулемет, опередивший время. .--Thomas.Lu (talk) 17:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The question is notability. And, we have only one Russian language source to prove that this weapon even exists. All of the information that we have about this weapon is traced back to this one source. There are no other sources anywhere to establish notability. A lone excerpt, from a single book, that can only be found in the basement of a Moscow library, is not enough to establish notability. If this were article about toys or any other subject, it would have been deleted years ago. However, because it's about Russian made guns people assume that it must be notable. Well, it's not, it's just one of hundreds of failed prototype rifles that the Russian have made since WW2.--RAF910 (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As you see, your statement that "there are no other sources anywhere" is incorrect as Thomas Lu just posted another source above. The source we have, plus a second that now comes up, makes it probable that there are enough sources to establish notability. It does not matter that these are Russian sources. DeVerm (talk) 20:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Read what I said again..." All of the information that we have about this weapon is traced back to this one source." Also, Thomas Lu most recent cited sources make no mention of the AO-62 and refer only to the Slostin (Gatling gun type) machine gun--RAF910 (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well RAF910, I did read what you said and I even quoted it... you just can not be sure that there are no other sources because if you would, your name would be Q, not RAF910. DeVerm (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Wiki is built on references, you have yet to provide a single reference to support you claims. All you have to do, is provide a handful of references and you win the argument. It that simple. However, please make certain that the references you provide actually mention the AO-62. The Thomas Lu references that cited before make no mention of the AO-62. Also, the references have to establish notability, not just a listing, not a footnote, not a picture with a caption, but an actual article stating why the AO-62 is notable.--RAF910 (talk) 01:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * You are not replying to what I write, so this discussion is not helpful. FWIW: I don't have to provide any references to support my claims; I have tried to explain how I (and presumably others) am not qualified to make a determination as we can't read Russian. It feels like you are replying to somebody else. I have yet to !vote but did not work this one out yet. DeVerm (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

OK...As always, when dealing with Russian articles confusion abounds...Therefore, in the interest of better clarity...We have three completely different weapons here...So, we should start over again.

AO-62 assault rifle
DELETE...one of a kind prototype, nothing more than firearms trivia.--RAF910 (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

AO-63 assault rifle
DELETE...one of a kind prototype, nothing more than firearms trivia.--RAF910 (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Slostin machine gun
DELETE...one of a kind prototype, nothing more than firearms trivia.--RAF910 (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 21:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete all of these articles. I can not find reliable secondary sources and none have been offered by others who searched. These articles fail our notability guideline. DeVerm (talk) 22:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as I'm not seeing better at the Russia Wiki and overall there's still nothing convincing for independent notability. SwisterTwister   talk  22:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- the subjects do not meet WP:GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:26, 1 July 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.