Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barrett REC7


 * 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. Consensus herein is for article retention. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 22:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Barrett REC7
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The rifle has not been adopted by any service and so it lacks notability to satisfy the WP:GNG. The entry in List of assault rifle is sufficient. Sources are mostly press releases. AadaamS (talk) 07:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak delete - I could not find notability guidelines relative to firearms, and this does not seem to pass WP:GNG. I would support an argument parallel to the essay WP:Notability (aircraft) that although M4 carbines are notable, this subfamily is not. Tigraan (talk) 10:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC) Keep, see under RCLC's comment.Tigraan (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Adding this rifle as a section in M4 carbines only requires that the information is verifiable, not that the rifle is notable. AadaamS (talk) 10:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, I have nominated Barrett M468 as well. AadaamS (talk) 09:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but then the article should be merged, not kept. Tigraan (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep subject of this AfD has received significant coverage in multiple non-primary reliable sources such as the following:
 * Rifle Shooter Magazine, Herald Chronicle, Shelbyville Time-Gazette, "Shooters Bible", Shooting Illustrated, Tactical Life.
 * Therefore passing WP:GNG, I oppose this AfD.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The "Herald Chronicle" link is a duplicate of the rifle-shooter-magazine one, and it seems like a press release to me. Shooter's Bible is a catalog and does not establish notability IMO. However, the other two specialized sources (Shooting illustrated and Tactical life) look legit, and the Time-Gazette is enough by itself for me. Hence, I changed my !vote. Tigraan (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your input. Two industry sources aren't enough to establish significant coverage. If they were both major newspapers or news outlets yes, but they are trade/specialized magazines even if they appear reliable. They are perfect for adding verifiable content to a section of the M4 article though. AadaamS (talk) 06:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree about the specialized sources, but the Time-Gazette looks like a reliable generalist source (although the truth is that I have no idea whether it really is - it just looks ok to me). Tigraan (talk) 09:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 06:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. We might not need two articles for both the REC7 and the Barrett M468 (given that the former is an upgrade of the discontinued latter within Barrett's 6.8mm carbine family), but merging is a chore I'm not willing to undertake. Pax 09:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, User:Раціональне анархіст I volunteer to do the merging but an admin had better do the deletion. AadaamS (talk) 06:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In retrospect, we should keep both articles, as it appears there's considerable precedent for giving military OEMs an article for each of their products (even if versions are sold to the general public). For instance, both the Barrett M98 and Barrett M98B have articles despite being apparently more similar variants than the REC7 and M486. (Keeping weapon articles is usually an "Easy button" on Wikipedia because most of them are extensively reviewed by multiple RS, such as those RightCow lists above.) Pax 07:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I disagree with you. Any such precedent would be road to a worse encyclopedia. The subject of every article on Wikipedia has to be notable. If there's a "precedent" about firearms just like there is a precedent that every light railway/tram stop in the world is notable by default then I think a policy change of WP is in order. Non-notable firearms should be put into "list of ..." articles or in this case, be made sections in the M4 article. A firearm is just a piece of equipment and it would be very strange to see a standalone article about every home PC ever manufactured just because they were reviewed by a couple of PC magazines. AadaamS (talk) 07:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I support that comment. The quantity of reliable sources available is only weakly correlated to notability as WP understands it. I can probably find a subspecies of beaver that has extensive documentation in Complete guide of everything that crawls, and the Complete guide might be acclaimed by biologists, but it certainly is only there for a small audience of specialists. Conversely, the use of chemical weapons against civilians in an area of conflict would most certainly be notable, but the "fog of war" makes difficult to have reliable sources. Tigraan (talk) 09:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - The Rec7 is notable and sourcing can be improved.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:31, 3 March 2015 (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.