Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AK-47 vs. M16

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 of the debate was No Consensus--Default--KEEP.

Also, note that: "[The M16] has been the primary infantry rifle of the United States military since 1967, and is in use by 15 NATO countries, and has been the most produced firearm in its caliber." Also, the AK47 was widely used in the Iron Curtain and it was "produced in greater numbers than any other assault rifle in the 20th century". The widespread military use and the relations to the Cold War make this a noteworthy comparison. Comparing these two rifles is hardly a crime, as this is one of the most notable gun comparisons you can make; this is not imply a "random" gun comparison. However, the article has been moved to "Comparison of the AK-47 and M16" and proper tags have been added. The difficulties in merging having been well noted. Regardless of this explanation, KEEP was the default choice regardless.Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 03:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AK-47 vs. M16

Original Research. The facts about the weapons may not be OR (although they are not sourced) but the comparisions and the chopice of what items to compare is OR unless a source can be cited that makes these comparisons. Delete First merging any useful info into AK-47 and M16 as the case may be. DES ^(talk) 04:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as OR, lest we be deluged with articles like Uncle Jessie vs. five tons of flax. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 04:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Please merge any useful content into AK-47 and M-16 ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 05:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research. --Carnildo 06:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, though the article would do well to add sources. If you want sources for the very idea of comparing the two items, consider as a first example the "Rifle Evaluation Study" published by the Army Combat Developments Command in 1962 (I believe at the behest of McNamara), which focused on the AR-15 and AK-47 (as well as the now largely bypassed M14). We don't need to worry about having totally absurd comparison articles because we include this notable comparison, any more than we need to worry about having totally absurd people articles because we include notable people. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point is that the objects being compared are arbitrary; it's not surprising that a study written in 1962 about a new assault rifle would compare it to the AK-47; it is then and now the most popular assault rifle in the world. Any article about any assault rifle, on Wikipedia or off, will not be unlikely to make reference to the AK-47, mentioning how it was influenced by the AK-47 (or why it wasn't) and/or comparing it to the AK-47 as a baseline.
    If you don't like my (admittedly silly) example, would you want to see FN FAL vs. AK-47 and Sig 550 vs. Heckler-Koch G41 and every possible comparison thereof? Of course not; stick general philosophy of design and tradeoffs involved therein in the assault rifle article, and compare each rifle to its contemporaries in the individual rifle articles. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know about those comparisons, I'd have to look into them. If they turned out to be notable comparisons, sure; if they didn't, then no. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • They're arbitrarily selected assault rifles. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. —Gaff ^ταλκ 07:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seems to me that just about anything with "vs." in its title (yeah, yeah, except articles about works that include that in their names, obviously) tends to be inherently OR. If this article were to remain, it should be renamed to something like "Differences between the AK-47 and the M-16" or whatnot, and even then I think some rather extensive sourcing and very solid references to actual performance tests would be required, so that the article is something that illustrates well-documented differences between the two weapons rather than sets them against each other. -- Captain Disdain 07:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Christopher Parham. Kappa 09:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The development of the M16 was largely influenced by the AK47, this article chronicles a very valid instance of an arms race --Anetode 09:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't the M-16 article be the place to discuss the other weapons that involved its development? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would, and I would also be in favor of merging the article. However that would call for a laborous process to properly integrate it and might involve the rewrites of several sections of the M16 article. On a different note: this article is not original research, it is a collaborative product of wikipedia and has been corrected by numerous editors (although it could use a few sources and references). --Anetode 13:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll note my support for this position; certainly with work this content could be made more useful, better organized, etc. That sort of careful refinement, however, isn't produced by putting articles on AFD; it occurs through discussion on talk pages, perhaps with the involvement of RFC. It certainly doesn't happen when you delete the article entirely. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Christopher said it well. Comment by User:Gene Nygaard. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC) ratified by me--Gene Nygaard 22:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this is a form of guncruft, while moving interesting data or facts to either the M16 or AK47 page would be worthwhile, the comparison does not warrant its own page. Usrnme h8er 11:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to M16 per Anetode. Remember that once deleted, you cannot use any material from this page, because attribution needs to be retained in the edit history. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's simply not true. There is a laborious but straightforward procedure for doing a "history merge" which provides a GFDL-compliant merge-and-delete. And it's easy to improvide GFDL-compliant merge-and-delete since the GFDL does not require any specific form for the attribution so long as it is done. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is. See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, merging edit histories tends to destroy the usefulness of the diffs for the period both articles existed. If it's merged redirecting is the easiest and least laborious way to retain attribution. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A page on an arbitrary comparison between two assault rifles. Uh, nooooo. I don't see a lot worth merging in this form, so I ain't too worried about that. Lord Bob 12:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Original research. Unencyclopedic. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as is per today. If sources could be added to prove that it is not original research, I might change to keep. Bjelleklang - talk 13:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete after merging relevant info, as per nominator. flowersofnight 13:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Up to ((current number of articles)^2)/2 articles of this type are possible. ~~ N (t/c) 13:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to M16 per Anetode. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 19:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete I find myself agreeing with AManInBlack, this opens doors to absurdity. At best move basic data to Assault rifle, in table format, perhaps? which would allow for adding data on other rifles in that category. Makes much more sense than having multiple Them vs. Us type articles. KillerChihuahua
• Expand very useful info in any discussion of the Vietnam war for example. --MacRusgail 19:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep probably rename, research and source.Trollderella 19:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please this does not seem arbitrary when "ak-47 vs. m16" has 2000 hits on google if we can have star wars vs. star trek we should have this too it is factual and noteworthy so erasing it does not make any sense at all Yuckfoo 21:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete by firing squad. Physchim62 04:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete echoing the above comments. Christopher Parham's point is interesting, although AManInBlack's riposte is astute and germane. Dottore So 13:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. Interesting comparison, relevant for the arms race and the Vietnam War. Perhaps describe the differences in the weapon subsystems in greater detail, with the underlying design philosophy differences. Few things deserve side-by-side comparison this much. --Shaddack 23:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete w. transwiki to Wikibooks. Jkelly 23:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The information is useful. Perhaps elements of the entry can be incorporated into the respective entries on each weapon. --Guest

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.