Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of modern weapons by type


 * 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 By further explanation, the objections have been that this has always been an unsourced, including the definition of modern as being all post-1945 firearms, overly wide in scope, and indiscriminate. Mandsford 17:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

List of modern weapons by type

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Wildly indiscriminate list, that purports to list all "Post 1945" (sic) weapons by type. Such a list would be gargantuan, even confined to personal weapons and light autocannons (and how is "light" defined?), which it appears to be. List is also rather incomplete. (Although it does include the dreaded "Stun cell phone"!) Unencyclopediatic, indiscriminiate, completely unreferenced. The Bushranger One ping only 20:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 20:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Appropriate summary list, should be more closely linked to the appropriate detailed articles on the weapon or class of weapon, which will provide the references. If limited to those weapons that have Wikipedia articles or sections of Wikipedia articles, how can it possibly be too large for Wikipedia. (And I think 1945 is a conventional cutoff point in military history--I wouldn't object, though, to also merging with earlier periods  in a comprehensive list, though it would still be helpful to have one on historical periods)   DGG ( talk ) 02:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Nom is self-defeating: it undermines its own "indiscriminate" assertion by noting that the list is, in fact, discriminate. The list is theoretically completable as well, although there's a good argument to be made for breaking this down by category (pistols, rifles, crew-served weapons, etc.) for a more manageable size, in which case this article could reasonably become a list of lists. Jclemens (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This kind of thing would be better accomplished via a category tree. Nick-D (talk) 07:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As it stands, the list is indiscriminate, even if it does have some limits to the scope, precisely because that scope is so wide. Simply attempting to list weapons post-1945 is a gargantuan undertaking, and the current list is wildly incomplete to the point of being POV on what it omits. The definition of a "modern weapon" is pretty subjective, but supposing that we could accept "post-1945" as the definition for the sake of argument, then we have to define the types: rifles, carbines, submachineguns, sniper rifles, grenade launchers, other small arms (some of which don't fit neatly into one category or the other)? What about larger weapons, like mortars, artillery, tanks, ship guns, aircraft, bombs, missiles, mines, nukes? What a bout melee weapons and other non-firearms (like modern crossbows?) The size of such a list would not only be unfeasable, unmaintainable, and unreadable, but it would probably impossible to gather into the list in the first place, not to mention being redundant to the other lists with much more specific and narrow scopes. I'd be willing to cast a keep vote if the list was renamed to "list of post-1945 small arms" and the scope made much more clear. Admin note: my rationale for Articles for deletion/List of modern weapons by country is going to much the same premise.  bahamut0013  words deeds 16:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Marcus Qwertyus   09:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. Anotherclown (talk) 07:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, unmanageably wide scope.  Sandstein   07:11, 2 February 2011 (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.