Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tkachev AO-46

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Mr.Z-man 05:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tkachev AO-46

Tkachev AO-46 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Obscure prototype firearm article created by sock puppet and spammer Asams10 05:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep, or at least postpone discussion. The article did, before I removed it, have a "more info soon" notice, which we should give the chance for the author to make good on before we delete this. The user's contributions, while not exactly top-quality, do appear to be made mostly in good faith. Let's assume that and give him a chance to expand and establish the notability, as he has said he will. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Changed to weak keep after reviewing some more contributions including one copyvio article and another which I nominated for deletion above. A little less willing to AGF now. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment/Question: What edits are you referring to as spam, by the way? Could you also provide some assistance with the sockpuppet claims? Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • STRONG DELETE - This AFD is in conjunction with reporting sock puppetry. This user is a suspected sock puppet of User:Jetwave Dave who was banned for sock puppetry and abuse of other editors. His edits and articles, this one included, consist of reading obscure English and Russion journals, copying text and pictures, and posting them to this and dozens of other sites, forums, etc. Further, GOOGLE yields two results, both appearing to be by the same contributor and this Wikipedia article is just a paraphrase of that article. If anything, this is copyvio at best, a hoax at worst.--Asams10 06:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
    Comment spam may not be technically correct. It is more like mass insertion of nn unverifiable cruft, neologisms he made up, silly redirects, and copyvio. Leibniz 12:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for lack of WP:V. Fancruft does not make WP:RS. Leibniz 12:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete There's a general prejudice in Wikipedia against well-written articles about firearms, and it's because of crap like this. Mandsford 15:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep: I've added a credible reference for the gun- not sure whether it is notable though.Nigel Ish 19:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Just becouse i vandalised a user before, it doesnt mean im going to vandalise again. Apart from that, i guess this page is being deleted just becouse i created it. User:Winky Bill, 21:30PM, 9/09/07 (UTC)
  • Comment I love reverse psychology, but I don't think anybody's decision on voting to keep or delete will be based on anything but how they feel about the article itself. Mandsford 21:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and comment I think we should delete this page currently and then when this can be really expanded by allot of information someone recreates it.(ForeverDEAD 00:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC))
  • Delete Per comments by Asams10 and Leibniz; a lack of RS makes the article unteneble in its current state. If more information can be found, it can always be recreated later. Winky makes claims that he won't vandalize again, but just today, he added my name to the list of former CGs of [[XVIII Airborne Corps {United States}]]. Someone isn't being very subtle, Jetwave. Parsecboy 23:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. The subject is part of the history of Soviet weaponry. This is exactly what should be in an encyclopedia. - Dean Wormer 03:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
not really. It's an obscure prototype. There are, literally, THOUSANDS of prototypes that are left out, intentionally, of Wikipedia due to their obscurity.--Asams10 05:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Asams10, though its a part of soviet history its not notable enough and obscure prototype. I could easily go to ordanace museum in Aberdeen and find some odd prototype but i don't because its not near notable enough ForeverDEAD 13:58, 16 September 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.