Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/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 No consensus. This article remains unsourced; but, given the radical changes brought about by its "stubification" during the debate, it deserves a little time to grow. Certainly, the topic is a reasonable one. Xoloz (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Modern weapons

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is an unsourced, difficult to maintain list of weapons with an ambiguous definition of the term. As a list it is superseded by Category:Modern weapons, and I have copied the important information into the CAT header. Burzmali 16:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, granted that this article as it currently stands is a little more than a list, and that the definition could be tightened some. If viewed as a list, this sort the weapons by nation of origin and separates the manufacturers from the weapons, two things that canot be done in a category. On a broader issue, if viewed as a encyclopedica topic, this could be expanded well beyond a list. Discussion could and should be made of the factors that distinguish modern weapons from those that came before, the key developments in the history of modern weapons, and crucial weapons and inventors. I note that article contains no sources, but also note that the issue has not been raised at with the editors of this article, either on the talk page or by a request for citations via template. Surely this should be done before deciding that article is unsourcable. I also note that WP:V says "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." (my emphasis). My reading of this crucial line is that if is possible to find sources, then the article topic is valid topic for the encyclopedia. It is not a demand that every unsourced article be deleted. Given the number of books on guns I see in bookstores, I assume that this topic can be sourced, if interested editors are given the oportunity. Dsmdgold 16:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

"Keep Needs more of a re-write then a deletion.  Esskater 11  02:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The category is far better. The article is currently just some modern small arms and would have to look very different to live up to its title.  Colonel Warden 17:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as an overly broad article topic. This is better covered by individual weapon-type articles, which ideally contain a history section to actually provide the necessary context for the "modern" distinction. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If the article could be written as well as Technology during World War II I would agree, but this article has been around since 2003, and has never really been more than an incomplete list. Burzmali (talk) 16:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I dont see the problom. Just becuase its about 3 years old, why does that matter. Were offering to re-write the article. Remeber its better to save an article then just to delete it.  Esskater 11  20:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree that an article on modern weapons has a place in Wikipedia, unfortunately, this isn't that article. In almost 5 years, the article has not risen above the level of a loosely associated list of weapons that various editors have a fondness for, no evidence is presented that the weapon is a "modern weapon" and the definition posed is that any weapon built since WWII is "modern".  If someone wants to recreate the article with better information, fine, but the current article isn't adding anything to the encyclopedia.  Burzmali (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment You should examine the page history more closely. The earliest date in the history is for a page move to List of modern weapons. That article was started under this title and the moved. The article was restarted on May 23, 2005. That makes this article less than three years old, not almost five. The article also contained substantially more text until a few monthes ago (see this diff). This article is still a candidate for expansio, not deletion. Dsmdgold (talk) 00:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok i re wrote the article ROUGHLY. I personaly think its still better then before. Obviously my version could be added to. Heck we could even talk about the entire term in its whole.  Esskater 11  02:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as a stub, so fix later. I've tagged it for sources etc.  Perfectly notable topic, no longer a messy list full of cruft. Bearian (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2007 (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.