Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of the AK-47 and M16 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Comparison of the AK-47 and M16
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Crap. There are only three inline citations and one is to the notoriously unreliable Global security GlobalSecurity.org. The article fails to account for the recent overhaul of the M16 (optics, rail system, new cartridge round that is more powerful than 7.62) and maybe even to the AK-47 (I don't know. I'm american. Maybe someone else can check this). And my last concern is that we can't compare every similar weapon system in existence. Marcus  Qwertyus   21:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep there are additional references in the references section, this topic is widely discussed. Several memoirs by soldiers of Vietnam discuss the faultiness of the M-16 and that some soldiers would pick up the AK-47 in preference. Gun magazines frequently have feature articles that compare these two weapons. There are scholarly research papers on the comparison of these two guns, like, mainstream newspapers even do articles on it, such as . 76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment as for every weapons system, most do not have much material that compare them, only some do, like US Civil War memoirs about Springfields and Enfields; or the impact of the "needle gun" breachloaders of the German Empire upon the Second French Empire and its muzzle loaders. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  —AustralianRupert (talk) 05:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and reference better, excellent article. I think above was trying to disparage GlobalSecurity.org not the concept of global security. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Righto. Marcus  Qwertyus   12:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep On the several points made above: 1)Yes, it had poor citations, but I've removed those and done massive ref improvement. 2) silly comparison - this is undeniably one of the most common firearms comparisons made. The sources available on direct comparison are numerous. 3) quality - the article definitely needs cleanup for WP:RS, WP:OR, etc but deletion is not a substitute for cleanup. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Not "crap" and notable - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: yeah, it needs a lot of cleanup, but the fundamental comparison is valid, considering the ubiquitous proliferation of these two weapons with belligerant parties (and given the history of opposing forces weilding these weapons). It does generalize a lot, there is some unreferenced contenta nd OR, and some tone issues, but most of the sources don't really pan out a SYNTH argument. I don't believe a "slippery slope" concern is a valid reason for deletion: we can allow the AK vs. M16 comparison without allowing comparisons of every other weapon in existance. In the end, this article makes for a good metaphor for the Cold War in general.  bahamut0013  words deeds 09:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per AWP:Energy conservation. I've removed the following circular reference: --Playmobilonhishorse  (talk) 04:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Energy conservation? Huh? How is that related?  bahamut0013  words deeds 12:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. If parts of the content are inaccurate, correct them to match whatever a reliable source says rather than deleting the article. Also, this isn't a comparison of every similar weapon system in existence; it's a comparison of two extremely widely used ones. Many sources have already made the comparison; some may not be particularly reliable, but others are. bobrayner (talk) 01:25, 30 September 2010 (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.