Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pribor-3B Assault Rifle


 * 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. WP:V is not negotiable. Those wanting to keep the article have not produced a single source to support it. Sandstein 16:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Pribor-3B Assault Rifle

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Either a very obscure prototype or a fake. Looks like a bad movie prop to me. In any case, WP:V. Prod removed by author, but no WP:RS forthcoming. Leibniz 15:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I could find no WP:RELY sources, but I don't think it's a fake (it looks like a failed prototype whose only claim to fame was apparently an appearance in Duke Nukem). I'm leaning towards delete though, mostly due to lack of notability. EyeSereneTALK 17:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per above; I also could not find any reliable sources regarding this weapon. The article is largely speculation, and is therefore unacceptable. Parsecboy 17:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I really wanted this to be keep, but all the references are circular from Wikipedia, apart from the speculative discussion at http://www.securityarms.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1222. Not a fake, and surely a terrible design, but the article is basically OR.  Springnuts 21:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You could start a long thread about the Gatling Flechette Meroka Nordenfelt Pump Action Ray Gun by showing the folks on that board a picture of the CPS 4100. Leibniz 22:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Its seems this artical doesnt seem to have any real facts to it. Theres a question mark for designed,nothing for produced, #'s built, variants, weight, length, action, rate of fire, and max range. Also it doesnt have sources nor it seems to have enough info to make it a decent size artical.(ForeverDEAD 23:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC))
 * Comment Considering that this weapon remained hidden from the rest of the world until it saw actual combat, I'm guessing that this other weapon, that saw limited use would not necessarily have glossy informational pamphlets sent to Washington DC about it. -75.130.90.56 01:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)-


 * Keep. Tula State Arms Museum exists, This firearm next to it in one of the pictures is real, This other firearm next to it is real as well & the designer German A. Korobov seems real (no one website highlights it but several mention his other designs). Considering this firearms designer was fairly notable within the Soviet Union, I'd call it a keep. -75.130.90.56 01:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)-


 * That's got to be the flimsiest argument I've ever heard. No one is doubting the existence of Tula. Just because there is information for his other weapons isn't good enough to keep this one. Parsecboy 11:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. Leibniz thought that it could be fake. Re-read the nom for deletion. It was nom'd for WP:V. Well, it is a real weapon. A real museum is housing a real weapon. The weapons surrounding the weapon for deletion are real, too. The designer is real & notable in the Soviet Union as a firearms designer. Given that it was designed in the Soviet Union during the Cold War, it is doubtful that there is a wealth of independent information written about it but that, in itself, does not make it non-notable. -75.130.90.56 17:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)-


 * The problem is there is absolutely no imformation about it, outside of some fanboy forums. Therefore, there is nothing with which to create an article. Parsecboy 17:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * First, anons can't vote on AFD. Second, I nominated it for lack of WP:V regardless of whether it is a photoshopped waterpistol or some dead-end prototype that the fanboys confuse with anything that has bullets coming out of one end. No WP:RS, no article, simple as that. Leibniz 19:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyone can !vote on AFD (vandals and socks aside, of course). Someguy1221 20:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Parsecboy is just trying to throw his weight around and should be banned from this discussion. Nonsensical sock ranting by . — Kurykh  19:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete. While it may be a real firearm in a real museum, and would probably be just about notable if it could be sourced, the fact is that the article is completly unsourced, and Googling finds nothing other than forums. As such fails WP:VNigel Ish 22:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Insulting and vandalising other users/userpages does not help get this page not deleted. Most likely it will turn others against you and hurt your cause.(ForeverDEAD 05:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC))


 * Those IPs that were vandalizing my user page (and main space pages as well) are socks of the perm-banned user User:Jetwave Dave. Those votes/comments should be ignored. Parsecboy 16:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Originally submitted by Parsecboy on 16:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)- Those IPs that were vandalizing my user page (and main space pages as well) are socks of the perm-banned user User:Jetwave Dave. Those votes/comments should be ignored. Parsecboy 16:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Before you start making accusations here on on your user page that Jetwave Dave was responsible for vandalizing your user page, you should submit some kind of real proof.  Otherwise, it smacks of a self-serving, false accusation.  That is not ethical and doesn't help your cause.
 * Before you dispute sockpuppetry allegations against you, do not make posts with the edit summary "Jetwave Dave will kick your ass!", lest you set yourself up for mockery and ridicule. — Kurykh  00:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Kurykh: Before you cite evidence found in an edit summary as proof, do tell us all what would keep anyone who wants to do so from claiming to be another person at anytime, anywhere here on Wikipedia while using an anonymous IP? I wait for your amazing reply.  There are just too many of you Wiki types who think that you know what the hell you are doing and saying here, when you prove all too often that you really don't have the slightest clue.
 * Have you heard of checkuser? Someguy1221 02:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, so you're an impersonator who's jumping from IP to IP trying to gain notoriety and taunting with utmost stupidity apparent in their words? Your floppy excuses get more and more ridiculous by the post. Don't come back before you begin thinking with your brains again. — Kurykh  02:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * See, I told you were full of it and would delete the post. The truth is not something you care to deal with, is it, Kurykh?  Yeah, we've got your number: You are a total phoney.


 * Well, he is American and he can spell, so it is not our friend Jetwave. You rather indulge him by letting him turn this AFD into his personal therapy session. Leibniz 12:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * A personal therapy session is what each and every one of you pathetic people need, more so than anyone named "Jetwave Dave," I daresay. I bet he is a real cool guy.

Jetwave, you're not fooling anyone. Why don't you get a life and move on? Is this article that important to you? Moreover, stopvandalizing legitimate edits by editors with whom you disagree. It's not helping your cause either. Parsecboy 00:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per lack of verifiability. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Personal attack removed. Someguy1221 04:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Lets Get Back On Topic Insted of arguing about people who make personal attacks and vandalise letts get back to the subject at hand. i would love to see a reason to keep this artical but none has yet to make a valadie reaon why this should be kept(ForeverDEAD 19:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC))


 * Weak delete - I think it's likely real (unless you assert an intentional intense photoshop session just to fool us, which is not likely). But there are ... thousands, tens of thousands of prototype firearms that never rise to the level of notability.  Lacking sources that it was of any significance in a technical or historical sense, and lacking reliable sources on what it was in detail, it's probably a bad idea to have an article on it.  Even if it was real.  Georgewilliamherbert 02:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, a lot of bad faith is shown in this discussion, but lets stay focussed on what we are here for, building an encyclopedia. Going through the discussions on the internet about this gun, there is no question that it is real and exists. Pictures of the gun on display in the Tula museum are circulating widely, the designer is known, and we know where the gun is found. Yes it is a prototype, but its very special nature (3-barreled) gives it a certain notability, even for just a prototype. Just on the internet, it might be very difficult to find reliable sources, but as we know exactly where this gun is on display, it should certainly be possible to find reliable off-line sources (in other words, the topic is definately verifiable, just not yet verified). Pending those sources and given the notability of this particular gun design, I think deletion is not the way to go. If a topic is both notable and there is a reasonable chance that reliable sources exist, the first thing should not be to delete the article, even (or especially) if the chances are such sources are to be found offline rather then online. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Then delete the article until someone actually takes the time to scrounge up a reliable source or two. Until then, the article is untenebale. And I'd say it's a bit of a mischaracterization to call what's transpired here "bad faith", when it is demonstrably the creator of this article, flipping out and vandalizing dozens abd dozens of pages, creating an impostor of me for God knows what, all because someone put this article for AfD. Not to mention he took the time to create an impostor email address, and has sent me a couple nasty emails. "Bad faith" my ass. Parsecboy 16:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Geez dude relax, no need to start swearing at me. As nowhere in my post I stated who I thought was assuming bad faith, I do not understand where this rant is coming from. In reality, I was referring to both sides in the dispute and not just you. Perhaps you should take a step back from this AfD and simply see where it ends. Apart from that, I stand by my statement as I think it is counterproductive to delete something that is both notable and verfiable, but that just hasn't been verified yet.  --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 17:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I wasn't swearing at you or anyone, for that matter. I just bristle a bit at people who enter discussions and talk about "bad faith" without knowing the circumstances of the discussion, especially when there was no bad faith until Jetwave flipped out and started vandalizing everything with incivil edit summaries. The problem is that it isn't necessarily "verifiable". Delete it, and if the sources are found, restart it then. Parsecboy 21:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * From WP:FAITH: "If bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that others' editing is in fact based upon bad faith, it can also count as a form of personal attack." So watch it. Leibniz 17:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "So watch it"? Man.. people are edgy in this discussion. I am really sorry if I am being misinterpreted, but you cannot deny that there are a lot of personal attacks (in 2 directions) in this discussion, which distracts from the real discussion. That was the only point I was trying to make. Again, I am sorry if that was unclear, now lets get back to the real discussion :) --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 18:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I Agree with Parsecboy on this one, i would love to have this artical stay but untill it can be sourced it should be deleted and jsut remade when the relible soruces are avalible.(ForeverDEAD 19:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC))

Comment If it is real, which has not been established, I for one would be very interested to see how this thing could possibly work. Where is the receiver? Is it partially disassembled? The bolt? Or bolts? Is there a gas system? Where does it eject cases? Straight down into Ivan's pants? (Gee, thanks for the hot brass, Comrade Korobov.) But I do not want to read any more fanboy speculation from "the internet", which is worse than nothing. Leibniz 20:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep say that all that exists is a single badly made and designed prototype (which might not be the case) that it had made no significance militarily or industrially; even than this article is still worth keeping. The UK's Royal Armouries used to keep a pattern room which they used to try and have at least one example of every firearm possible, however badly made, designed or insignificant, the purpose was to illustrate different approaches to the same goal, and the approach for this weapon is definately unique, we can aspire to do the same. The problem with deleting this article and rewriting when relaible sources can be found is that it just won't work, we rely on the community at large, many casual passerbys, to edit and create our content,unless the article exists there is no way for editors to know that the article need improving. I'd be far happier removing content that editors believe is unsubstantiated and to be re-introduced as sources are found than to delete KTo288 02:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It was a REAL prototype. It introduced the concept of letting the rifle recoil within the receiver as in the HK G11 rifle that came after it. If we delete this article, we'd need to delete the information on Project SALVO and SPIW as well.  While obscure, there are alot more obscure things that have successfully endured AFD scrutiny.--Asams10 04:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment For some reason, Parsecboy has been deleting the Pribor wikilink from other articles before this AfD has finished, e.g. AK-47, AK-74, SA80. Geoff B 05:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I fixed that. —Thernlund (Talk 06:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I was deleting them because Jetwave was just spamming the links to articles it has nothing to do with. Why would you put the Pribor under a "See also" for a Romanian copy of the AK47? The two are totally unrelated. I'll be removing them again, when I have the time. Parsecboy 09:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The first time you also deleted the links from articles like List of weapons influenced by the Kalashnikov design and List of Russian weaponry, that clearly were appropriate. Thanks for leaving those in place the second time and I agree with you that links should be deleted from really unrelated articles. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - After some of my own poking around, I am fairly convinced it was real, even if only a prototype. It being obscure it irrelevant.  However, the article does probably need some reworking to illustrate the lack of intel on this weapon.  —Thernlund (Talk 06:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and comment - I've AfDed a lot of unnecessary articles that user Jetwave Dave has created. This one is not one of them.  I say keep it.  I think its pretty clear it is a real weapon, despite the fact that the only facts surrounding it are speculative at best.  My comment therefore is to create an article dedicated to obscure Soviet small arms projects.  That way everyone gets what they want.  Jetwave Dave gets a home for all these things, and we're not flooded with a dozen perpetual stubs.  I think that's a win-win to be honest.  I think we just need to be more creative in terms of article creation, rather than creating this tiny articles for everything under the sun.  Things with few facts can and should be grouped.  There are all sorts of good examples of this.  Even variants sections in many articles is a good example of this.  I'm still trying to compile information for one on US Aircrew Survival Rifles, instead of making stubs for every one of them.  -- Thatguy96 07:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * A proper article on Soviet prototypes would be great. Sections could be added as sources are found. Unsourced gamecruft and nn trivia should be deleted on sight. Leibniz 12:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I would agree to such an article. However, like Leibniz stated, sources would be required. If sources can be provided, then all the better. That's all I was pushing for initially, anyways. Parsecboy 13:37, 23 August 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.