Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A warning about websites that describe guns

A warning about websites that describe guns was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE

Can't think of any content for this title that would be encyclopedic. Nor can I think of any place to move it, and any redir seems like it would be a stretch. Also seems to be original research. Niteowlneils 21:42, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete, not encyclopedic. Charles Matthews 21:45, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Move to User:Anthony Appleyard/A warning about websites that describe guns and delete. RickK 22:14, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * delete, silly. Dunc|&#9786; 23:53, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Bizarre. Who would need the warning and who would look for it on Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk  03:32, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, or merge into A warning about Wikipedia articles warning about websites that describe guns. Just delete.  Geogre 04:44, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

See Talk:A warning about websites that describe guns for more discussion about this page.
 * The paragraph "Can't think of ..." says that it is "original research", as if nobody knew it before. But it is well known among very many people who know about weapons, that (1) the Twilight War and the USA copy of the APS do not exist in the real world, and (2) that these confusing web pages exist.
 * "Bizarre. Who would need the warning ...": I for a start would have been glad to have seen this warning, before I described the USA copy of the APS in a weapons email group as if it was a real weapon. Ditto likely many other people who are not familiar with war videogames and the names that are in their scenarios. Wikipedia pages are allowed to point to thousands of reliable outside information pages; it is only a short step to warning people about unreliable outside information pages: as long as the public internet exists, people will inevitably look for information by searching for words in Google and Altavista etc and not only in Wikipedia. In the page that I pointed to, the warning that parts of the matter are fictional, is inadequate now, and earlier was nonexistent. If that page had been a story, I would have suspected at once that it was fan-fiction; but it was an information list, not a story, and most of the weapons that it described are real or look real, and nothing in it was clearly unreal like ray-guns. Anthony Appleyard 06:57, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. It may be a useful warning, but Wikipedia isn't the place for it. Ambi 08:31, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * If so, what is the place for it? I still feel that somewhere in the Wiki--- areas there should be a warning list about inaccurate web pages that look like fact but are not. Anthony Appleyard 08:38, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * It would be nicely suited to a place that deals with such warnings. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia article this ain't. Ambi 08:44, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not an encyclopedia article. jni 13:45, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. If Wikipedia articles about fictional guns should have disclaimers, let's get them disclaimers. If other websites that talk about fictional guns need disclaimers, we can't do anything about that. But this isn't an encyclopedia article. &mdash; mendel &#9742; 16:42, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. How would anyone who needed to see this warning ever find it or know to look for it?  How and why would they look for it on wikipedia and under this title?  Non-encyclopedic and useless. Gamaliel 00:20, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with Gamaliel.  Question for Anthony Appleyard: Before you made your post about the nonexistent weapon, did you come to Wikipedia and enter "A warning about websites that describe guns" in the search box?  Did you do anything else that would have brought you to this article if it had existed then?  I'm not accusing you of lacking due diligence before your initial post.  I sympathize with you because I can understand how the site led you to think this was a real gun.  My point is rather that I can't imagine any circumstance under which having this article on Wikipedia would actually save anyone else from such a mistake. JamesMLane 09:08, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Before you made your post about the nonexistent weapon, ...": At the time, I had not heard of Wikipedia. If I knew about Wikipedia then, I would have looked in it for the Mk 37 Mod 0 Underwater Assault Rifle, more commonly known as the "Frogman Stinger"; if someone else had already put that rifle in the list of rifles, and clicking on its name got a page warning that that rifle did not exist in the real world (and why the www.pmulcahy.com/ web site was misleading with no or inadequate distinction between fact and fiction), I would have been thereby warned and informed. If a page or section A warning about websites that describe guns is kept, with a link to it from suitable places such as the list of real rifles, then at least some people will be warned away from being misled by "faction" such as www.mulcahy.com . I have just found in List_of_firearms the entry Morita Smart Rifle MK-1 (Starship Troopers), so clearly, another such warning "This is fictional" could go in there. Anthony Appleyard 14:07, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * No one is saying there shouldn't be any warnings anywhere. Articles about fictional things should always be clearly marked as such. Fictional things added to lists of real things should always be clearly marked as such. We simply dispute that this particular warning in this article is of any practical use. Gamaliel 17:45, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Anthony's argument would support keeping articles about fictitious weapons, which, along with Star Trek materials (see Votes for deletion/Trilithium) and the like, sometimes show up on VfD. It's also an argument for allowing List of firearms to include fictitious guns, clearly marked as such.  Those approaches seem more realistic than hoping people will stumble upon this article. JamesMLane 18:03, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Falls outside the scope of wikipedia. --Improv 20:44, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * delete; fix any wikipedia pages to which the warning applies; then this won't be relevant to wikipedia Then it isn't encyclopedic.. Mozzerati 21:44, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.