Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alejandro Sniper 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   keep. ince there is a consensus to keep this article. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 10:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Alejandro Sniper Rifle

 * – ( View AfD View log )

"I'm no expert on this subject," is a gross understatement, but the article itself mentions that this particular firearm was only in production for ~2 years, and had no significant attention paid to it. As always, more than happy to be proven wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 09:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Very minor, but it does seem to exist. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Can someone please write a bot to detect AfD "arguments" straight out of WP:ATA and put them in special typeface -- perhaps white characters on a white background? EEng (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Context is everything. "Little attention paid to it"...because it's from Cuba. Systemetic bias, anyone? Finding sources is a pain but military equipment, especially weapons, is almost invariably notable and article-worthy. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment this search would not appear to assist retention of the article. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not? Its existence is confirmed. Strangely enough, Cuba is unlikely to be big on posting details of its military technology on the internet! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article doesn't say it was only in production for two years, but that it was in the design process for two years. It appears to be currently in service and is therefore clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think this is a case where WP:IAR is acceptable - given Cuba's political isolation, obtaining thorough sourcing on their military equipment is problematic and I doubt the CIA will allow us access to their files! An equivalent weapon in a Western country would be considered notable and probably easily sourced (which I consider a valid argument of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS given systemetic bias) ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 12:33, 14 October 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.