Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of the AK-47 and M16


 * 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 no consensus. Jaranda wat's sup 23:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Comparison of the AK-47 and M16

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

There are many different versions of the M-16 and AK-47. Trying to generalize the differences is akin to making an article on the difference between Ford cars and Toyota cars. You could make some generaliztions, but it wouldn't be encyclopedic. So the question is this article comparing the AK-47 vs the M-16 (what the title of the article sugests), the AKM vs the M-16a1 (the two main rifles used in the Vietnam War), the AKM vs the M-16a2 (the main versions used in recent conflicts}? To take one example of weight, the AK47 is heavier than the m16 or m16a1 however the AKM is lighter than the m16a2. So should the article say the "AK47" is lighter or heavier than the "M-16"? So on and so on. So I believe it needs to be deleted because by the very nature they cannot be compared since there is no definitive "M-16" or "AK-47 Homersmyid 21:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete There is no way to write this article without violating WP:OR as the entire premise is opinion. Pharmboy 21:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is simply not true. It is not OR to report expert's published opinions on the subject. JulesH 07:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even though I enjoy using the AK47 (in GoldenEye 007 for Nintendo64, of course), any information in this article deemed encyclopedic should be put in the articles AK47 and M16 rifle or this could lead to hundreds of other articles comparing all combinations of guns, planes, etc.  Useight 21:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Over the decades, many a battle has been fought between persons armed by the West (M-16) and by the East (AK-47), so this is notable. Although firearms knowledge is not my forte, I've been impressed by the level of detail in weaponry related articles.  Sadly, these seem to get deleted.  I disagree with the idea that there is no way to write an article comparing the two weapons beyond "original research", given that The History Channel has addressed the subject using, one would hope, more than OR.  Some additional sourcing besides The History Channel would be an excellent idea... surely "Guns & Ammo" has done an article.  One of the great things about Wikipedia is that it permits a level of coverage that a paper encyclopedia cannot offer, and a tech-rich article on firearms is more welcome than 1,000 articles about Scooby Doo.  Mandsford 22:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I would accept trade mags, military papers, and a wider than usual variety of media for comparisons as WP:RS, but I think this is still very difficult to do without original research (ok, not impossible, but damn hard). As someone who actually trained on the M16, I understand the "interesting" factor, and even the historical reasons that make the article concept valid.  I'm not 100% convinced it can be done without fighting, flamewars, and in the long run, opinions that dig deep into Original Research.  Maintaining a WP:NPOV is also difficult, as non-Americans may have a very different viewpoint.  IE:  You are right in theory, but I don't think it would work in practice w/o constant violations.  Pharmboy 22:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I think the relevant comparison would be the one about Category:Software comparisons. There are plenty of articles in that category, and as I recall, some of them have been kept after an AFD discussion.  If this page were more like those, it might be better.  However, I think the page would be better done as a Comparison of assault rifles.  Naturally, everything on it should be sourced, but I do not consider that to be a serious problem.   is at least one source that looks valid for the question of wounds.  I suspect somebody could find an official study from the DOD with looking.  FrozenPurpleCube 01:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * DOD generally doesn't release this type of info unless it is FOIA related (read: lots of years & lawyers). The current war on terrorism also makes releasing any new info like this impossible.  I wish you luck, but I wouldn't hold my breath in getting WP:RS info from the gubbermint.  The trade and enthusiast mags are a different matter, but the quality (and debate) will vary.  Pharmboy 21:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say you'd likely be correct with your concern if this was something besides assault rifles, but with 30 years of history, I think something could be done. At the least, I know there are congressional hearings that were open to the public.  So while I suppose it might be some trouble, I don't think it's inescapable.  Especially since there are civilian versions available.  FrozenPurpleCube 23:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * For the record, I was in the Air Force, plus I held a FFL (Federal Firearms License) for a long time, and while I am not an expert here, I am pretty sure that any report that affects national security simply isn't published. Try and show me ONE published official DOD comparison of a M16/AK47 from ANY year.  I wasn't kidding when I said US DOD documentation like this is only released under Freedom of Information Act circumstances and subject to serious obfuscation or flat out undocumented changes.  To your other point: how many companies have made M16 (AR15) and the AK-47, that is why the comparison is void. There are lots of different AK-47s, but fewer different M16/AR15.  Making a comparison matrix just doesn't work.  The AK-47 has so many different varients made all over the world, which makes it the most prolific gun in history but they all differ in accuracy, durability and quality.  It's like comparing the Ford Taurus to Chevrolets.  All Chevrolets.  There will be no way to pry the original research out of the dead cold hands of this article.   Pharmboy 00:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahem, I have zero idea of your personal qualifications and I honestly don't care, I'd really prefer you not try to prove things to me by asserting personal authority. Sure, I'll concede that there may be some secure reports not readily available, but it's not like it's feasible to claim there are absolutely no reports whatsoever available.   I  Perhaps there are ones that are more secure than others, but none?  Nope.  As to your other claim, that would be an editing concern, nothing more.  Sure, there are many varieties of the AK-47 made, but then, there's a lot of rifles made.  As I said above, I think that this would work best as a comparison of assault rifles in general, not just one or two.  If it's impossible to get exact information on some aspects like accuracy, durability or quality, there are other aspects like weight, construction, type of bullet, date of introduction that are not. As for your car comparison, Consumer Reports regularly compares dozens of cars at time.  If they can do it, so can we.  That some may or may not be built differently is a reason for us to look for sources to discuss those differences while making the page.  Perhaps you should consider bringing that issue up on the talk page if this article is kept?  FrozenPurpleCube 04:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, I should note that are plenty of other countries with access to both the M-16 and AK-47, so it's not like there aren't other potential sources. Supposedly there was a study here by the Israeli Military, but I guess you need to be a member.  I have no desire to do that, but perhaps some other Wikipedian will.  FrozenPurpleCube 04:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I know you are new, so please understand I wasn't trying to impress you, I was establishing the basis for my claim of a modest amount of expertise. Applying WP:AGF would apply.  Most people do not understand that there are over 100 million AK47s out there, by over a dozen of manufacturers, which is what makes a valid comparison problematic to begin with.   As to the reports you claim are easily available, I am still waiting to see ONE usable link that meets WP:RS and WP:V.   The article is automatically a candidate for deletion if you can't do those things, even if it DOESN'T violate WP:OR and WP:POV. Pharmboy 18:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm new?? Really?  Are you sure?  Besides, would it matter what number edit I was on?  Not so much as what I'm saying.  Anyway, I didn't say anything about reports being easily available, I said to start with that some looking would be required.  But then, that's true of many things.  Still, can you deny that it would be possible to get the date introduced, the type of bullet fired, the weight, the various models available, the manufactures, the countries that have used these rifles?  See, I think part of the problem here is that you aren't even on the same page as me as to what this article should be like.  I believe I prefer something more general purpose rather than a direct "is this better argument" which is what I'm suggesting would represent.  Do you think there's enough information available for that? FrozenPurpleCube 02:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to jump in here for a second, it doesn't really matter who's new or not, or any other personal qualification. The question is if this is meets wikipedia standards or not, and I believe it doesn't. Simple things like weight and caliber of bullet can of course be compared, but that can be found on the respective pages of the m16 or ak47. The text of the article itself is rife with WP:OR and WP:POV problems, I don't think this is disputed. Homersmyid 03:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, they can be found on those other pages. That doesn't mean a single page with handy access to the information isn't also a good idea.  I actually find such things very useful, and I'd prefer something more like that than the list of assault rifles which I consider to be nearly useless.  Take for example:  List of battleships of the United States Navy.  All that information is available elsewhere, but is also useful in one place.  FrozenPurpleCube 03:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions.  -- Carom 02:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This is pointless.  If we allow this, we could have comparisons of every semi/automatic weapons vs the AK or the M16, and the same for pistols.   Corpx 06:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article has references to reliable sources that discuss the subject.  Looking over the article text, while very little of it has inline attributions, it does appear to be pretty solidly sourced by the references list.  Basically, I can see nothing wrong with this article. JulesH 07:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per JulesH and Mandsford. Jmm6f488 09:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I second Jmm6f488's Strong Keep per JulesH and Mandsford. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Something like this can't be written without OR or POV. Besides, if we allow this, what are we going to see next? ''Comparison of the Gold PP7 (Goldeneye 007) and the Golden Gun?" Rackabello 22:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, you can do without OR, if somebody *else* does the research. Whether or not it can be done without POV, I don't know, but that's not an inherent objection to an article.  Besides, there are things that aren't POV, like weight, rate of fire, range...  FrozenPurpleCube 00:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep per JulesH and Mandsford. Mathmo Talk 04:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Historical relevance. I think the article could be trimmed a bit.  I mean, stick to the info that is being compared.  Once the fact tags are met, it will be a great article.  On a final note, I think it is not true that 'having this article will open the door for articles comparing...'  I doubt that OR has been done on every possible comparison.  If it has been done and there is no other reason to not have those additional articles, then the more the better (as editors we should not consider space and server performance issues...)Brusegadi 05:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, needs references to legitimize the comparison. Otherwise, it's not a notable intersection of data. Axem Titanium 14:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's not perfetc but I like this article. Is it possible to add a disclaimer at the top "This article may contain opinion, etc." something like that? --Blue387 10:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I keep seeing people say "I like it", but (ie: WP:ILIKE) clearly states that this is a non-argument for keep. I still don't see anyone clearly explaining how it won't violating WP:OR,WP:RS and WP:V other than to make generalized and unsubstantiated claims, OR to accept sources as reliable that would never be considered reliable in any other discussion.  I find it hard to believe that world.guns.ru and www.ak-47.us would *really* be considered reliable as defined by policy here.  I have yet to see anyone actually address THESE main issues with more than generalization and unsubstantiated claims, and I can't see how you can keep ANY article when it has this many issues.  Pharmboy 19:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is interesting encyclopedic article.Biophys 02:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Week Delete unless sources can be found. As it stands, this borders on WP:OR, as there are only two sources listed that actually purport to compare the two weapons (I say purport because I've never seen the documentary listed).  The rest of the article is a compilation of facts relating to each rifle that are put together to make a "comparison", plus  some of the editor's commentary ("The AK-47 is generally considered a less accurate rifle.").  I think it's possible that there is some actual scholorly work on this topic, but without it, I think this has to go. JCO312 17:47, 17 August 2007 (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.