Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smith & Wesson M&P15

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 speedy keep. KTC (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Smith & Wesson M&P15

Smith & Wesson M&P15 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Note: I am changing my vote to keep now based on sources thoughtfully provided by VQuakr (--David Tornheim (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)) Original Post: Does not meet notability requirements. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Firearms#Variants the article should be merged into AR-15 variant. The only notability in the WP:RS appears to be its criminal use, especially in mass shootings; however, there is a consistent rejection of allowing any of that WP:RS to be applied to the article. See for example [1]. Hence, there is no WP:RS to ground the article. I provided notice that notability was an issue here (one month ago), requesting additional WP:RS a be located, and none other than criminal use was provided. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• Keep Huh? I see about half a dozen sources demonstrating compliance with WP:GNG already in the article. What WP Firearms has to say about the subject is irrelevant at AfD. If you think the article should be merged then you are at the wrong forum, and if you think the article should be deleted due to a content dispute then you should review WP:POINT. VQuakr (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Please identify the reliable secondary sources that make it notable. During the month I asked for sources at the article here, no new ones were provided to make the gun notable. Without WP:GNG, the article cannot stand. Please refrain from accusations and casting aspersions and assume good faith and focus on the matter at hand. Focus on content not editor. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

You may want to review WP:BEFORE; "I asked for someone to hand me sources" is inadequate. The WP:POINT note was a conditional statement specifically prompted by the text of your nomination; it complies with WP:AGF. Since you asked: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and [8] are examples of independent, significant coverage. Final note - exclusion of some particular content from an article, whether or not that exclusion is editorially valid, is not a reason to delete an article and is not a factor in determining notability of a subject (since notability is an attribute of the subject and is unrelated to the level of coverage currently in any article). VQuakr (talk) 02:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@VQuakr: Thanks for providing better sources! I will change my to keep. It's unfortunate that you were not at the talk page when I made my post 1 month ago. With these sources we can improve the article. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• Keep Per VQakr. This is a notable firearm and nothing less than political grandstanding by nominee.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Please identify the reliable secondary sources that make it notable. During the month I asked for sources at the article here, no new ones were provided to make the gun notable. Without WP:GNG, the article cannot stand. Please refrain from accusations and casting aspersions and assume good faith and focus on the matter at hand. Focus on content not editor. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• Speedy keep per the ones above, including what is said about the nomination being WP:POINTY. And David, please do not post the same reply to me as to the others here, I've already read it. Twice even... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
• On second thought Delete or Merge. The piece is written atrociously and any attempts to fix it are quickly thwarted.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Searson: can you clarify how your "delete" reasoning is different than the "argument to avoid" outlined at WP:NOTCLEANUP? VQuakr (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is so poorly written that almost none of it is worth saving. I went in to help after the AFD and found a poorly sourced, poorly written article that should be an embarrassment to anyone associated with it. I am not a deletionist and while I do think the topic is notable, I would rather see it deleted and rewritten than try to salvage any of it. Cleanup seems impossible when one faction believes that anything mentioning the rifle in a positive way is marketing and that it is only notable because a madman used one to murder people and there is no writeup about the pros and cons of the rifle in The New York Times or Harpers. It does not help when the other side relies on half-assed blogs and press releases instead of higher quality sources. This article and this debate over its deletion is a shitshow.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

^Thanks. I mostly agree with what you have written, except I am not on any side, but here to make and maintain an encyclopedia that uses good sources is WP:NPOV and follows our policies and guidelines, etc. I definitely agree that there is too much "rel[iance] on half-assed blogs and press releases instead of higher quality sources". If all of the non-RS was deleted and some real WP:RS was substituted that meets the Firearms#Variants and WP:GNG, I would change my vote to keep. I find it strange that Mike Searson is one of the only other respondents who acknowledges how bad the sourcing is. My experience of discovering the problem was similar to Mike's: I came to the RfC answered, and then later when I looked at how bad the sourcing was I was appalled. I did my own search for better sources, and didn't find anything, but I don't have enough familiarity with the subject to know where to look. I have no objection to positive (or negative) reviews, as long as the sourcing meets WP:RS. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• Keep There are already plenty of sources listed on the page already to make it notable. All you have to do is go down to the references and see there are different citations from different locations. That follows WP:GNG. Reb1981 (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Really? You mean like [1], the product listing from Smith & Wesson? [2] which is not about the particular gun (and I believe doesn't mention the gun at all), [3] the Press Release from Smith & Wesson? Or [4]-[8] ATF's list of export data? I'm having a hard time identifying the high quality secondary sources you claim exist. Which ones are you calling secondary? What in the article can be saved as being properly sourced? I'm not seeing much of anything. Almost everything looks primary, sales and promotion or not related to the specific gun itself. I find it odd that there is this defense of numerous secondary sources, yet no one can identify any. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Then all I can say is your looking for any reason to get rid of this article because all you have to do is look and its there. Did you bother looking at 20 and 21? Like the others are saying this nomination is WP:POINTY. While I agree with others the wording needs improvement, the article is notable. It's a preferred rifle for its reliability and affordability compared to other AR platforms. Reb1981 (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

So you are saying that these two articles are sufficient to prove notability?

You are saying that policemag.com and outdoorhub.com are independent reliable secondary sources sufficient to prove notability and the second is not just doing publicity for the manufacturer like the press release? I am not familiar with either source and have insufficient info. to judge. We don't even have a Wikipedia article on either source. They are definitely not the caliber of the New York Times.

--David Tornheim (talk) 02:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• Keep The sources listed in the article provide more than sufficient significant discussion in secondary sources to satisfy WP:GNG several times over. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• Keep per reasons above. Springee (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• Strong Keep and close. The only problem here is that the proposer is mis-reading the WikiProject Firearms guidelines. That guideline is there to stop people from making new pages on the Smith & Wesson Models 29-1, 29-2, 29-3, 29-4, 629-1, 629-2, 629-3, etc. when they're all covered by the Smith & Wesson Model 29 page. It's not to discourage creating pages on notable (per GNG) models made by other companies. Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Obviously meets GNG. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 02:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. GNG clearly met. Problem is the pushing of POV content of any thing and every thing that can be construed to be negative into the article without any weight or relevance criteria being applied. If a S&W M&P fell off a table onto someone's toe at a range, this would likely even be added by certain editors, as it would reflect negatively on the rifle, and push a negative agenda. We should not confuse negativity with relevance with notability. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

References

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.