Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhafiz (weapon)


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Muhafiz (weapon)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article was previously deleted at Prod. There is no indication this weapon system is notable. I have not been able to find any reliable sources about it. Not notable. GB fan 00:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - can find virtually nothing about it, have to conclude it isnae notable likes nonsense  ferret  02:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. While the system is certainly notable, this article carries the distinct smell of vanispamcruftisement. Would have a strong hunch the image is copyvio too. WP:TNT. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't know that I'd agree with the idea that the weapon system itself is notable - I can find no record of any major export sale or significant deployment within the Turkish armed forces, although admittedly I might be running into a language issue. According to my personal assesment of how these things are documented in Wikipedia, a weapon system seems to be notable merely for being in widespread use within a military establishment, or has generated some type of non-trivial and non-routine news coverage (export sales stories and the like). This seems to have neither, so it would fail basic WP:GNG. Probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. I would recommend a redirect but the title is awkward at best to be considered a plausible search term and the article isn't old enough to merit it. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:51, 28 January 2013 (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.