Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of modern weapons


 * 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. Courcelles 00:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

List of modern weapons

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This has essentially the same problem as the now-deleted Modern weapons (see Articles for deletion/Modern weapons (2nd nomination)): there is no sourced definition of "modern weapon".

Even an alphabetical list of post-1945 individual firearms, which seems to be the intention here (why 1945? Developed since then? Used since then?) is not very helpful, since there are simply too many potential entries. The sublists List of modern weapons by country and List of modern weapons by type are far more useful.  Sandstein  19:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment even if this current article is deleted, an article at this title should exist, since it should list the two sublists on a single article (a list of lists), and the other deleted page, should redirect to that list of lists as well. Or if this article is kept, it should redirect here. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 06:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep "Too many" is not a reason to delete because it is our policy that Wikipedia is not paper. Post-WW2 seems a reasonable working definition of modern. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Too many" is a reason for deletion for lists that can become, by virtue of their scope, unmanageably long. The better approach is to split the topic into more tightly focused sublists, as has already been done.  Sandstein   08:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * When a list is split for reasons of length then we keep the original to provide a summary so that a tree structure is formed. See List of minor planets for an example.  Colonel Warden (talk) 09:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But here the contents of the list (a random assortment of handheld firearms) is neither the original of the other list (and would be too large if it were), nor their summary.  Sandstein   09:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the list already contains sensible structural elements directing readers to sublists. The part that you are talking about is just a section.  That section can be split off in the same way, improved in situ or just removed.  This can all be done using normal editing tools.  Deletion is neither necessary nor helpful. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Partial delete: the skeleton is OK per Colonel Warden, but the "by name" section is impossibly incomplete and unmanageable and needs to go. There are by and far many other lists and categories that are more useful, in better shape, and with more clearly defined scopes making this list utterly redundant.  bahamut0013  words deeds 12:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Never mind, changed my mind, just merge and redirect to Lists of weapons.  bahamut0013  words deeds 12:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete 'Modern' as understood by historians is post 1500 AD. Anything Twentieth Century is very much modern. What use is a list of post-45 firearms when we have the categories page for exactly that? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete – Per WP:NOTDIR. The articles already exist in their own right, so there's no need to create a directory article. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  11:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that referencing NOTDIR is a bit disingenuous. For one, it notes that there is nothing wrong with lists with a significant association (and directs the reader to see Stand-alone_lists). I wouldn't classify the article in question as a directory, at least, not in the sense that the policy prohibits.  bahamut0013  words deeds 19:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Unfortunately this list suffers from a very vague title (what is modern?, what is a weapon?) and thus its inclusion criteria is essentially indiscriminate. (violates WP:SAL) Most of the entries are guns, but there are countless other types of weapons--bombs, missiles, knives, non-lethal, bows and arrows.  Its not that there shouldn't be a list of weapons, its just that whatever form those lists take, there needs to be a much better, and discriminate set of inclusion criteria.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG with the caveat that it is renamed to List of post-1945 military weapons and there is specific inclusion criteria as to what specific types of weapons are to be included.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, changing the title to "list of current weapons", which is what is intended. If one looks only at the current title, it would seem vague, but actually theres a good specific definition at the article. I think that answer's Mike's main objection.    DGG ( talk ) 20:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Current" is no more specific than "modern". The definition in the article, "every weapon currently in development, production, or significant service in the world" encompasses an unmanageably huge number of weapons.   Sandstein   20:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * the definition used by the article: "in use 1945-". That's a perfectly reasonable historical time period, but in any case is specific. The title cannot express all the subtlety. If you like, List of firearms, 1945- . The actual use in the article is well-defined. As for unmanageably lare, it means as always, those notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. That's hardly unmanageably large: if we can manage the articles, we can manage a list of the article. I don;t know that anything is unmanageably large for us; we're not paper, and have no fixed limit, and the total size of Wikipedia is way below what the database system could accommodate even now.   If there were a million such weapons, we could have articles on them, and make a list of those articles.    DGG ( talk ) 21:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * DGG: it's not specific to the point of being NOT reasonable. Many armies of 1945 still employed equipment designed in the 19th century. Practically all firearms of WW1 were still used in WW2 and survived it. Just what kind of weaponry would you expect to find, say, in Peru in 1945? A less exotic example would be the M1911 pistol. The article says some of US services still carry it, but would anyone call it modern? East of Borschov 13:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would. Heck, they are still being made, such as the MEU(SOC) pistol. But the example of a 99-year old model still in production and used by elite operators just goes to show that even a clearly defined scope is still ambiguous with the constant phasing in of new equipment; there simply are no clear lines to be drawn in the sand that will make sense for most instances.  bahamut0013  words deeds 19:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep but move to List of post-1945 weapons. I agree that the name is very vague, but a move will resolve any problems.--hkr Laozi speak  01:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * delete. "Modern" is subjective; "weapons" are, in fact, small firearms (see List of firearms) with a few 155-mm howitzers (see Category:Lists of artillery) thrown in... This is better handled by already existing "by type" or "by country" lists. East of Borschov 12:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Subjective, arbitrary criteria. An indiscriminate list. Tarc (talk) 12:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Indiscriminate, arbitrary, unmanageable, contains no useful information. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:00, 27 October 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.