Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airrow A-8S Stealth


 * 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. This mass nomination includes articles with very different lengths, notability, and referencing. There was some indication that some of the shorter individual articles might be better merged into List of air guns, but there was not sufficient agreement on which to constitute a separate consensus. CBD 11:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Airrow A-8S Stealth

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Series of orphaned, dead-end articles on air rifles and pistols lacking any references consisting completely of original research. Might be appropriate for a product section within articles on individual manufacturers that meet notability guidelines but these products do not rise to level of notability warranting a dedicated article for each of these:

RadioFan (talk) 03:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  — &oelig; &trade; 08:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  — &oelig; &trade; 08:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions.  — &oelig; &trade; 08:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep/Merge, At least one is worth keeping: Girandoni Air Rifle, but the rest would probably be better off merged into List of air guns to make that a more detailed list with short summaries of each air gun. Seems a laborious task but a much better option than wiping out all this content. -- &oelig; &trade; 07:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Even summarized and merged, references are going to need to be identified and used. wikipedia is not a publisher of original research.--RadioFan (talk) 10:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. But unreferenced is not a reason to delete. All this content is still encyclopedic, and is verifiable. References can be added in time, material challenged and likely to be challenged can be removed. I'm not seeing much OR in these, mostly just short descriptions of the guns. -- &oelig; &trade; 11:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Merging the kind of short descriptions you mention would be a good outcome here. My earlier comment was just a (poorly worded) reminder that references still need to be there, especially any technical details, without a verifiable source for this information, that's OR.


 * KEEP ALL. At most there are only two that I can see that could be deleted and they should be nominated separately. A lot of work has gone in to these articles and there are a number of start class articles in here. There are also some interesting historical articles with photographs of 100+ year old air rifles. A lot of work has gone in to these and the "right to bear arms" applies since many meet WP:GNG. Obviously, some require more references but it isn't fair to nominate these articles en masse.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 10:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The amount of effort put into these articles, by one editor in particular, how interesting they are, or how old the subjects are do not excuse them from Wikipedia requirements and guidelines, particularly notability and verifiability. It's not at all clear how these articles might meet notability guidelines as they few that have any references use primary sources or fan forums as references.  The only claim of notability in any of them is that they are old which is not sufficient to meet WP:GNG.--RadioFan (talk) 10:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Many have also been used by the American military and in notable wars. Also, with regards to WP:EFFORT, it may not excuse the author from following certain guidelines, (and I'm not saying this is why they all should be kept) but recognizing and giving due consideration to the amount of effort a user puts into improving the project helps the community as a whole, because it allows us to retain editors instead of driving them away (and it looks like almost all of these were in fact created by the same user, who may not even be aware all his creations are at risk of deletion.. I've left him a note on his talk page). Indeed I'm glad this was brought up, as it seems editor retention is more important now than it ever was before: see the recent 'call to action' from the Foundation, urging us to "increase community awareness", and "work with colleagues to reduce contention and promote a friendlier, more collaborative culture, including more thanking and affirmation". Sorry for the spiel --  &oelig; &trade; 12:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm half-temped to suggest keeping simply because I dislike mass nominations (especially seeing List of air guns here). However, in the spirit of AGF, I will consider more closely if the nominator assures us all that he (she?) took the time to study each article at length for any redeeming qualities, searched for sources to prove notability, and attempted to improve.  bahamut0013  words deeds 20:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The discusion here is on whether or not these articles meet notability guidelines, let's keep the discussion there.--RadioFan (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Notability isn't the only concern addressed in the nomination, nor is it the only relevant concern. The responsibility is on any XfD nominator to prove that due dilligence was done in making sure that his ir her concerns were not readily fixible; and I think a simple assurance is not asking for too much proof. Like I said, I will consider more closely if offered that.  bahamut0013  words deeds 11:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I assure you a good faith attempt was made to search for references to help determine some notability here since none was claimed in the articles. The results of searches were of unclear reliability. The generic nature of some of these titles brings up a variety of hits from guns to video games to computer equipment.  So here we are.  If there are sources that consensus here deems reliable and the articles updated so that they may meet WP:GNG then great.  Again, let's focus on these articles and not descend any further into WP:LAWYERING.--RadioFan (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Allrightythen, let's move on. Delete Airrow A-8S Stealth, BAM B26, Gat air pistol, IHP Airpistol 0.177, National CO2 Air Pistol (.177), Shooting Star Tommy Gun, and Webley Stinger. The BSA Supersport Air Rifle and BSA Ultra can be redirected to Gamo (airgun manufacturer), while Sterling HR-81 should probably redirect to Sterling Armaments Company. I'm a bit more dubious about BSA Scorpion Air Pistol: the photos do match the ones used in the film, but I couldn't find an RS explicitly naming them, so no opinion on this one. For Drozd BB rifle, one of the sources seems legit enough, but I'm on the fence about whether is establishes notability or not (so neutral here too). Keep Girandoni Air Rifle, it seems to be less a replica/toy/airsoft gun and more an actual historical tool, having been used on the Lewis and Clark expedition, and has a couple of good sources. I'd like to keep Kunitomo air gun for similar reasons, but it's unsourced, so I'd default to a weak delete unless somebody finds a good ref. McGlashan Air Machine Gun and Palmer BB Machine Gun seem to have notability as WWII training tools; though I haven't been able to verify the book listed, I think they are keepers. I'd say the same for the McGlashan Coin Shooting Pistol if only it had a better source; I'd wager the same book probably could reference this one, so I'm gonna AGF and say weak keep. List of air guns is in terrible shape, but I do think it is a worthy list (remember, the requirements for a list are different than an article), and think a weak keep is in order (without prejudice to renomination if it doesn't improve in a reasonable amount of time).  bahamut0013  words deeds 12:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Your list of articles to delete (weak or otherwise) seems appropriate.   The articles you list as delete or weak delete could be redirected to articles on the manufacturers of these guns. Some exist, some dont.  Those that dont are likely to meet notability guidelines, would Yunnuy and/or Bahamut0013 be willing to help here?  Girandoni Air Rifle seems well enough referenced and notability claimed to remove it from the list (I've struck it out above). However, the remainder that you list as keep above still have some problems.   I'm still not convinced that the can meet general notability guidelines specifically because of the lack reliable sources covering them.  McGlashan Air Machine Gun and Palmer BB Machine Gun are referenced with a primary sources (a the manufacturer's website, an self published flickr photos) and a book which appears to have been self published, perhaps by a vanity press. (all information I've been able to find on the book point to ordering it from the author and that a very small press run was made)  additionally I've not been able to find an ISBN number for the book. McGlashan Coin Shooting Pistol is referenced in a single magazine, the rest of the article appears to be based on original research, a selective merge to the manufacturer's article seems appropriate.  As for the list article, it still must meet guidelines for stand alone list articles, specifically it needs to consist of entries with their own non-redirect article.  It's currently mostly red links and after this AFD will have only a couple of notable articles.  I suggest merging this list into Notable examples section in Air guns--RadioFan (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I could live with merging List of air guns to Air gun if the majority of entries are indeed deleted. I'm hesitant to delete McGlashan Air Machine Gun and/or Palmer BB Machine Gun until somebody actually verifies that the book referenced is not a reliable source by getting eyeballs on it.  bahamut0013  words deeds 12:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yunuy 23:48PM, 11/5/2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I did not add all listed and not just for no reason. The ones i did add are the because: Airrow A-8S Stealth - A notable development of a high pressure air weapon since the Girandoni, Kunitomo air gun - Its a Japanese derivative of the Girandoni and does have a historical role in the development of pneumatic weapons,  McGlashan Air Machine Gun,Palmer BB Machine Gun & Shooting Star Tommy Gun - Because they had roles during WW2 as a cost effective training device.,  McGlashan Coin Shooting Pistol - There is already an article but decided to give its own page.,  Gat air pistol - Because it has become something of British fairground culture as it has been around on stalls since the 1950s?.,  Webley Stinger - Because its one of the few BB Guns that use a slide action and an overhead magazine,  List of air guns - To list examples down for the same reason as the List of firearms but sectioned for air weapons.
 * Comment Articles must meet notability guidelines to warrant their own pages. The reasoning you list above for each of these is interesting but it isn't sufficient to justify dedicated articles.  This information can likely be adequately covered in the articles on the respective manufacturers or perhaps in air guns.   It's worth pointing out that all of this information must be cited.   While tempting, we cant write articles based on our own knowledge, it's got to be citable in reliable sources..--RadioFan (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 14:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Air Rifles. Nothing inherently notable about these, although they may be of interest to readers. Redirect the individual articles to the list. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is assuming that Girandoni is not up for deletion because it has been crossed out. Keep Girandoni if it is still up for deletion. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Merge and redirect all to list of air rifles per Crisco 1492, except Girandoni Air Rifle which there's a consensus above to retain.— S Marshall T/C 22:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Drozd The Drozd is a totally unique airgun (it's a machine gun) and absolutely 'notable' in the sphere of airgunner interest. This is a no-brainer keep. LoverOfArt (talk) 19:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the :sphere of airgunner interest" isn't the litmus being used to judge notability here, it has to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Specifically, are there sufficient reliable sources to base an article on?  --RadioFan (talk) 12:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Merging to a list may be a good idea for now, but as far as I can see the stubs are all unverified. The lack of verification should allow a redirect, but disallow a merge. However, if all are redirected instead of merged, there won't be any content in the list, meaning there won't be a list for the stubs to be redirected to. -- Pink Bull  14:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, a merge would allow the content from the stubs to be verified, given time. -- &oelig; &trade; 14:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how a merge would allow the content to be verified any more then if the content were not merged. Some of the stubs have been around unsourced for a number of years.-- Pink Bull  14:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 07:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Procedural keep - I do not think it is appropriate to mass-nominate these articles, as although some of them may have non-notable topics, the notability of most is at least debatable. A merge to a list would not improve Wikipedia's coverage of air rifles/pistols. We should debate each article independently, so that we have the time to look for sources etc. for each one. Anthem 10:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Why has this been relisted? Consensus seems perfectly clear to me.— S Marshall  T/C 12:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a disagreement (slight, though) as to whether they are worth keeping or merging in an unreferenced state. If, however, another uninvolved editor disagrees, then please feel free to close the debate. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep all. While a list article would be useful (even though the nominator apparently proposes deleting the relevant list), there's no basis developed for determining which articles should be reduced to list entries and which can support discrete articles as well. No prejudice against returning for case-by-case determination if necessary. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep all I checked out one of these (the BSA Scorpion) and found that there were plenty of sources out there such as Shooter's Bible, Guns Illustrated, Popular Mechanics, Gun Digest, The Greenhill dictionary of guns and gunmakers, &c. The nomination is therefore shooting blanks and so should be discounted and our editing policy followed instead. Warden (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2011 (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.