Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mk43 Machine Gun


 * 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   merge to M60 machine gun. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Mk43 Machine Gun

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The Mk43 Machine Gun is know as the Mk43/M60E4 General Purpose Machine Gun. The topic seems to be covered sufficiently by M60 machine gun#M60E4/Mk43 Mod 0/1. The article sources itself to a copyrighted editorial uploaded into wikimedia.org. See http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/02/MK43Editorial.pdf (How is such an upload even possible?) M60E4 was deleted in 2005 as blatant copyright violation from M60E4.Mk43.pdf. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: I've listed this article at Copyright problems/2011 March 10 due to Uzma Gamal's concerns, which seem plausible to me. I've also tagged File:MK43Editorial.pdf as a possibly unfree file (with noth notices to the editor). Jeez, it feels a bit like biting the newbie, but I'll monitor this guy to make sure he doesn't get overwhelmed.  bahamut0013  words deeds 16:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to M60 machine gun: Even if we can resolve the copyright issues satisfactorily, this variant still has issues with redundancy and lacks notability independant of the M60. We don't need a content fork here.  bahamut0013  words deeds 16:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions.  — bahamut0013  words deeds  16:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The reason I separated this from the existing M60 page is because there are MANY variations of the M60 and the Mk43, although called a M60E4, is different enough from the M60 that it shouldn't be under the M60 main header.
 * Additionally, the M60 page is HORRIBLE. I am not being defensive here, but why not nominate IT for deletion? It is a blatantly skewed by someone favoring the 240 and pretty much only references design flaws. It doesn't even give a sufficient history of the weapon. It has been flagged for being biased and needing citations, etc, for months, why isn't it up for deletion?


 * And I do feel like it's "biting the newbie" just because it's not perfect. I would like to learn how to do it right! I would like to be able to write a flawless article that doesn't get flagged, but it is hard when you're starting out! Why not HELP me? p.s. Bahamut I am a girl :) but thank you for not wanting me to get overwhelmed. I just feel like people are saying, x, y and z are wrong instead of trying to teach me how to make it better. Thanks. Littlemslawandorder (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, apologies for the gender issue (there's actually been quite a bit of buzz lately about the gender gap on Wikipedia, so I'm pleased to see a new member of the fairer sex). Try not to take the deletion nomination personally; it's all part of the encyclopedia improvement process, and if you take it as a lesson learned instead of harsh criticism, you'll be writing better articles in no time.
 * The main issue (after the copyright isues, which can be easily resolved by some re-working) here is that the references don't really establish that this particular variant is notable independently of the main weapon platform (i.e. the way the M4 carbine is independent of the M16 rifle). We generally try not to split off sub articles like this unless article size demands it, and that's not an issue at the M60 article.
 * If you really have the resources you claim, then you'd be helping out much more effectively to edit the M60 article and improve it. Much of what you've written for this version could easily be transferred over, if properly referenced. Your efforts there would be much better appreciated, and if you do build the article up to the point that splitting makes sense, then that's an option you can take up for discussion at talk:M60 machine gun.
 * It also sounds like you could use some editor support and collaborative tools. Since you seem interested in firearms, you could try joining WikiProject Firearms and/or WikiProject Military history/Weaponry task force. If you ask there, somebody might be willing to mentor you in the specific nuances of writing these kinds of articles. Another good place to start is reading policies and guidelines and the Five pillars.  bahamut0013  words deeds 12:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Redirect to M60 machine gun. This topic appears to be covered sufficiently there, but this title is absolutely searchable.  I would prefer to keep the history intact underneath a redirect in case anything needs to be merged.  Cheers.  lifebaka++ 23:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: it looks like lifebaka and Moonriddengirl have taken care of the copyright issues, so now we can just address the notability. The rationale I presented in my merge !vote still stands.  bahamut0013  words deeds 14:38, 22 March 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.