Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weapons of the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq


 * 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. Ironholds (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Weapons of the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is an unreferenced, extremely incomplete list, that has existed since 2004 and been in its current state, essentially changed and utterly unreferenced, since 2005. In addition, it is extremly American-centric; the only "Coalition" weapons listed belong to the United States...and furthermore, only those used as personal weapons by members of the United States Marine Corps! I can't see how this list has any encyclopedatic value. The Bushranger One ping only 19:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per above. The article is completely unreferenced and highly incomplete.  Even if these were overcome, I'm not sure what the value is to Wikipedia.LedRush (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 20:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 20:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 20:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Easily enough referenceable by those who know the subject--most should already have refs in the appropriate more detailed articles on the weapons. Weapons used in a particular war is a very appropriate summary article for an encyclopedia. Who would be interest in the military aspects of a particular war who would not want to know that? Just the thing for a comprehensive encyclopedia    DGG ( talk ) 02:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. If the list was incomplete, let's make it more complete. Why delete? Biophys (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If this was a category, I'd say "non-defining for the weapons listed". As it is, what does this list do, even complete, that mentioning the weapons in the article(s) on the war and occupation itself doesn't do? - The Bushranger One ping only 18:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 2003 invasion of Iraq does not include the list of weapons used during the operation. Hence the list. Biophys (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * True, but I believe my point was missed. The weapons used should be worked into the prose of the article. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Not indiscriminate, per DGG, and my arguments on similar weapons lists AfDs. Jclemens (talk) 01:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG. Once you've removed from the nom's deletion arguments all of those that are fixable by editing, all you're left with is "I don't get it."  Listing weapons by the wars in which they are used is a pretty standard and obvious way to classify weapons, and to provide info on the materiel used in a conflict.  postdlf (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: unreferenced, incomplete to the point of being POV about whom is listed and whom is not, insignificant intersection, and redundant to many other lists (such as List of individual weapons of the U.S. Armed Forces and List of crew-served weapons of the U.S. Armed Forces). The weapons used by the insurgency is going to be highly problematic, because nearly everything under the sun was used (I've actually handled a flintlock rifle captured from a weapons cache in Fallujah), and there was virtually no uniformity to which groups favored what models (aside from the fact that the AK-47 and its variants/derivatives were virtually everywhere) that attempoting to list them all would be unfeasabile and smack of OR and SYNTH. And the fact that the article hasn't been improved in years goes to prove that cleanup is not likely to occur to bring it up to any sort of standard, no matter how meager.  bahamut0013  words deeds 16:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Bahamut0013. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - per Bahamut0013. Anotherclown (talk) 07:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom/Bahmaut. This list would also get extensive as U.S. troops also used AK-47/Ms and PKs along with other U.S. weapons such as the M79. During my time in country I saw insurgents use everything from shotguns to hunting rifles to whatever they could find. The AK-47/M variants also varied greatly from the manufacturing country. My experience would be OR; hard to verify. Also, insurgents used 82 not 81mm mortars.--NortyNort (Holla) 00:43, 31 January 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.