Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of assault rifles


 * 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. I could let it go the five days but consensus is now obvious. Wizardman 18:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

List of assault rifles

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Currently unneeded. As a pure alphabetic list, all it does is partially duplicate Category:Assault rifles. Also, many entries are outdated and are now redirects. I have no objection to an eventual recreation as a table with other data such as year of introduction, operators, calibre etc. Sandstein (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Withdrawn after a complete rewrite by OlenWhitaker. Thanks for your effort! Sandstein (talk) 16:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My script did not properly add this AfD to the daily log. I've done this now. Sandstein (talk) 08:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom Duplication of category. - Jahnx ( talk ) 10:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Asams10 (talk) 10:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete since a category already exists and it provides only names. But, I would change my opinion if someone thinks to change it to an appropriate list. Note that intellectual matter of this list is sufficient to convert it to a Featured List. -- Niaz  (Talk •  Contribs)  13:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said earlier, currently there is no basic difference with this list and its category but it's intellectual merit is very rich and it can be improved up to Featured List very soon. Just Few min back OlenWhitaker confirmed me that he is going to expand this list and interested to put extra effort on it. Now, I believe we should keep this article, thus, changing my opinion to Keep. Though I am extremely busy with two different articles right now, but I will definitely try to manage few extra time to get back to this list and help OlenWhitaker. Cheers. -- Niaz  (Talk •  Contribs)  21:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, AFD is not for cleanup. If you want the data in a table with year/operators/caliber/etc, put some cleanup tags on the article. --Pixelface (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   —Pixelface (talk) 13:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, as noted above AFD is not for cleanup or requests for expansion. Leithp 14:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 *  Keep , can easily be improved to meet standards, and with some extra effort could be an FL. I'm tagging for cleanup now. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 14:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed to Strong Keep with the proposed new format by Olen on the article's talk page. Exactly what I was looking for, now start working! Hers fold  (t/a/c) 20:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, relying on the interest expressed by several editors in making this more than the indiscriminate list that it is now. Mandsford (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Hersfold. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It could use some expanding and such, but it meets all the criteria for an article.  K im  u  18:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article needs a lot of work, but the subject matter is of sufficient note to warrant such a listing.  At present it is redundant with Category:Assault rifles, but I see potential for something much better.  This article needs expansion, not deletion.  OlenWhitaker   • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 18:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 18:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Important Note: I have whipped up a sample treatment for a possible makeover of the page and posted it on the talk page for this article. Is it worth the effort to do the whole page in this style?  Anyone have a better format in mind?  OlenWhitaker   • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 20:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 20:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Further update: I am moving ahead with the re-formatting as we speak! Give me 24 hours and I'll have the whole page re-done.  While I'm working on it I'll keep in on the talk page should anyone wish to contribute to the work in progress.  Thanks, all!  OlenWhitaker   • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 21:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 21:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Furthest update: The new version of the page just went live. It is not quite complete yet, but I will be adding even more content in the coming days.  OlenWhitaker   • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 16:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 16:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as pointless milcruft. Eithin (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete as it duplicates an existing category, Category:Assault rifles, and further forces continuous editing to keep this list current. Why make more work for editors and duplicate editing efforts.  Automation thrugh using categories is a much cleaner way to address this content. Yaf (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Strong Keep as with complete re-write it now includes much useful information. Yaf (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Lists and categories are not mutually exclusive. New readers of Wikipedia are more likely to use lists than navigate by categories. --Pixelface (talk) 20:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Help fix it, don't delete an article that could be very useful if fixed. Sf46 (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - per the nominator and the proposal on the talk page; this list has potential to be far more than the category could possibly be. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - there exists both articles and categories for a list of something (for example: "List of Looney Tunes characters and Category:Looney Tunes characters) --Philip Laurence (talk) 15:12, 13 March 2008 (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.