Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NIVA XM1970

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 merge to Bofors Carl Gustaf. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NIVA XM1970

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find any reliable English-language sources for this. Perhaps a Swedish-speaker would be able to assist; otherwise, fails WP:GNG. Also, was created by a Ctway sock; he was known to make up information. ansh 666 06:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merging seems reasonable, provided that the sources used are verifiable and that it follows WP:UNDUE. ansh 666 06:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 06:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 06:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines.--RAF910 (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (One Swedish speaking editor as requested) per RAF910 above. (move to merge) Not a hoax, but no notability whatsoever. It was an experiment that never took off. The only know copy of the NIVA, short for Nytt infanterivapen ("new infantery weapon"), is in storage with the sv:Vapentekniska samlingarna ("Weapons Collection") in Eskilstuna City Museum and there are no reliable Swedish (online) sources other than the link to the manufacturer's website already in the article. w.carter-Talk 12:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Bofors Carl Gustaf instead, perhaps? Since it is after all a little known but interesting piece of weapons development history, as well as potentially a window into some of the arguments and political maneuvering regarding Swedish defence doctrine during the early 1970s; for example the XM1970 seems likely to have been intended in part as a low cost alternative to the Carl Gustav recoilless rifle during a period when the government (1st Palme government) was gutting the defence budget among other things to fund social welfare programs & various other ruinously expensive white elephants. The NIVA program could also be considered to be a counterpart in at least some respects to the then current American Future Rifle Program. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Found another source; a brief mention and image of the (second?) prototype on slide 24 of this presentation from 2004. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bofors Carl Gustaf as this may be salvageable and that article will also need work. SwisterTwister talk 06:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 07:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I should have mentioned this yesterday, but the NIVA XM1970 can also be considered to be notable in its own right as Sweden's first attempt to introduce an rifle chambered for Intermediate cartridge (NATO 5.56x45mm in this case) ammunition into service. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we're talking about Wikipedia "notability" here, not normal notability. If there are enough reliable sources which discuss this weapon as such, then it could meet notability. But, again, I personally didn't find any (as us 'murrcans don't seem too interested in Sweden for whatever reason). ansh 666 01:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Bofors Carl Gustaf as per Ceannlann gorm's excellent suggestion. I just didn't think that far, my bad. It's good we have a gun expert in our midst to keep us on track. w.carter-Talk 17:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.