Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bushmaster XM-15 (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Per SNOW. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor Talk! 09:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Bushmaster XM-15
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I don't know anything about firearms, but it's not clear that this rifle is notable in its own right. It it already mentioned several times in the AR-15 article. It does have a brief mention in the one referenced book, but besides that I can only find a few YouTube videos mentioning it and sales at some gun stores. Pianoman320 (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is among the most popular and notable of the AR-15 pattern weapons. Two classes of variants within the product line have articles of their own, Carbon 15 and Bushmaster M4-type Carbine. If there was a concern about notbility the sensible thing would be to merge those articles into the parent article. Many talk page comments across mhave suggested creating this page. See Talk:Bushmaster_M4-type_Carbine, for example. Further, the weapon is notable for its use in several highly prominent shootings, including the Beltway sniper attacks and the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, both of which resulted in major lawsuits against the manufacturer. I agree that most generic AR-15s are not notable, but this is an exception. [Note: the article is at Bushmaster XM-15, but I've requested a move to Bushmaster XM15, which is how the manufacturer spells it.]Felsic2 (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Also known from a few shootings, I think this rifle should have its own article. Here is a few news articles found in HighBeam. Ilyushka88 &#124; Talk! Contribs 03:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * If the verdict is "keep", there is a request by User:Felsic2 to move Bushmaster XM-15 to Bushmaster XM15; he says "''The un-hyphenated version is the official name.". (Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)}
 * No longer true, Bushmaster's 2016 sales brochure hyphenates it. Herr Gruber (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * KEEP. If you don't know anything about firearms, stop editing firearms articles. Please, read Competence is required and stop wasting our time.--RAF910 (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, clearly notable and properly sourced. Nominating it for deletion is clearly frivolous., and part of a crusade against guns of all kinds that Felsic2 is pursuing here. Thomas.W talk 19:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Um, actually he put the article up, it's someone else trying to delete it. Herr Gruber (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oops, my bad. Thomas.W talk 19:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, notable and popular firearm. Also has a bizarre habit of showing up in high-profile incidents (off-hand I can think of the Beltway Sniper attacks, 2007 Colorado YWAM and New Life shootings, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and North Hollywood shootout, and the shooter in the Capitol Hill massacre had one in his truck too). Herr Gruber (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment, "If you don't know anything about firearms, stop editing firearms articles.", editors are encouraged to BE WP:BOLD, although also to be WP:CAREFUL, putting this article up for afd may have not been the best way to go, a query on its talkpage, and at Firearms project may have been more appropriate, anyway Keep as article is well sourced and meets WP:GNG. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep notable and properly sourced.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 07:00, 25 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.