Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of conflicts and wars fought with M16 type 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 delete. Strong consensus to delete all. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

List of conflicts and wars fought with M16 type rifles

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Indiscriminate list of wars and conflicts in which the firearm is used, firearms are designed for use in such conflicts and wars and this list adds no value to the encylopedia and provides zero information to the reader. Article was created as bait or a decoy article to keep vandals away from the primary articles. (This was to stop the listing of random use of such weapons in both crimes and wars on the main firearm articles). This is not how wikipedia works. Note this has been discussed at project level at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history MilborneOne (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because of similar concerns:


 * Keep - The M16 and Kalashnikov are landmarks in firearms engineering and military weaponry. Wars are, in my opinion, inherently notable. As long as the items on the list are provable to belong to the list, I have no objection. I express no opinion about the other three weapons because I'm not familiar enough with the topic. However, can we be consistent about the titles? Remove the word "type" from the 4th and 5th items, change the second to "...with Geweher 98 rifles", and possibly change the first item to "...with M16 and derivative rifles". - Richard Cavell (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Although wars are notable the fact that one of 75 million AK-47s or 8 million FN-16 was used in such a war is trivia and hardly of note. MilborneOne (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep--RAF910 (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete – a) the lists are not referenced per conflict and I seriously doubt anyone is going to go through each list and every conflict to verify them all; b) the lists are not sorted and due to the loose and illogical format they cannot be navigated with ease, making them unhelpful; c) Wikipedia doesn't need to have "decoy" honeypot articles to deter vanadalism from other pages, we have admins who can opt to apply page protection, pending edits or block editors to stop war editing – better a few protected main pages that a wholly uncited side-list; d) Uncited lists that can be edited by anyone, adding and removing entries, are more likely to be vandalised than articles, making them highly unstable; e) readers now have to navigate through 3 layers (weapon→list→conflict) whereas before they could just go from the weapon infobox to a conflict with ease and not have to search through a poorly organised list of conflicts; f) the scope of the lists are too broad which opens a can of worms to creating pointless lists just about anything, undermining the encyclopedic nature of the project. — Marcus(talk) 17:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete all - these type of lists are not notable; the conflict/war and weapon itself are notable for separate articles. These type of lists are never complete and suffer from WP:OR and opinion as to what should and should not be included. Kierzek (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions.--RAF910 (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  21:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- an unnecessary cross categorisation; this list does not meet WP:LISTN. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Verification and original research issues. Ajf773 (talk) 02:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete all. I think that Kalashnikov and M16 are notable weapons, however evrything about their wide usage should be described on pages about the corresponding weapons. Creating such countless lists (that are always incomplete!) does not serve any useful purpose. My very best wishes (talk) 17:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom. Given that all wars involve multiple gun types and all common types of guns such as these are used in large numbers of wars, this is not a useful way of classifying either the guns or the wars. If the articles were created as vandal-bait this was unnecessary: simply ask an admin to apply protection if there's a serious and/or long-lasting problem with vandalism via WP:RFPP. The notion of creating such articles is also flawed in that it simply creates an article which vandals will target but which few good faith editors will be monitoring - this isn't helpful for our readers who will end up being misled by such articles as a result. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete all - not a notable way of classifying the subject matter, per WP:LISTN. Anotherclown (talk) 11:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete all, (No redirecting) these are common weapons used in many conflicts since their creation, and lists are little different from "list of conflicts since 19xx". (If a weapon is crucial to a conflict then that should be reflected specifically in the articles.) Use as a decoy is not a Wikipedia process for countering vandalism. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete all While the weapon are notable, their very widespread use precludes creation of a list of any real value to the reader. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete all Per Hawkeye7 and others. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete all I don't have a tag, but every time we store info about a item on more than one page we create a potential train wreck. I know; it's an aspect of flat-file databases.-- Georgia Army Vet  Contribs  Talk  20:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete all The notion that we're going to start building lists of this kind, and then categories, as a conflict by type, as a kind of ant trap for vandals -- as seems to be the case -- is a new one for me, even after all my years here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2017 (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.