Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Firearms

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Firearms. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Firearms|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Firearms. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

Firearms AfD

[edit]

15×96mm

[edit]
15×96mm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of notability. I changed this to a redirect to 20×82mm#Usage but was reverted. Seeking consensus. TheLongTone (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, the redirect is incorrect as it doesnt cover this cartridge. This cartridge was in use throughout WW2 but has too much data to be squeezed into the article MG 151 cannon. There is stuff to write about its history given enough time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blockhaj (talk • contribs)
Does it matter? The article is not hurting Wikipedia in its current state, it is just a list of cartridges and their data. This is a matter of deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. Blockhaj (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HARMLESS - The Bushranger One ping only 19:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just trying to understand what you meant, Blockhaj. For instance regarding time, we never write about stuff that we think might catch on in the future (WP:CRYSTALBALL), but in this case, enough time has passed that sources would have been written by this point. Geschichte (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect The whole article seems to be copied and pasted from the 316 page manual and there is no secondary sources to prove its actually notable. Its seems to be a development prototype, so wasn't even in anger. So why is on here in the direct. Redirecting with a small para of 2 lines in the destination article would be ideal. scope_creepTalk 18:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
: Note that it wasn't just a development prototype - it did see service, in the MG-151/15 (which was mainly used in early Bf-109Fs- Williams and Gustin's Flying Guns: World War II notes that the 15 mm gun "may have been more widely used than is generally though".Nigel Ish (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 15 mm variant was also more common in the anti air role due to the higher velocity. The "SdKfz 251/21 Drilling" SPAA and its mount in fixed use featured 15 mm MG 151 guns, and it appeared late in the war. Blockhaj (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have also heard about the use in some anti tank rifle but i cannot find anything on it atm so that is a future research project. Blockhaj (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see material was removed, but I don't see any citations (at all)... I guess that warranted its removal. —Fortuna, imperatrix 19:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rapid Fire has projectile weight, muzzle velocity and muzzle energy for HE, AP and APCR ammunition.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect It does appear the MG 151/15 was used as an antiaircraft weapon (according to the Handbook of German Military Forces) as well as some aircraft. Maybe redirect to MG 151/15? Intothatdarkness 19:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any sourcable content and Redirect to 20×82mm, the cartidge that was developed from this one. Directly related, both cartidges can be covered there. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While i prefer this compromize over complete deletion and bloating the MG 151 article, they are completely different cartridges. Sure, the base of the casing is the same, but thats about it. The 20 mm projectiles were taken from the 20x80 Oerlikon cartridge used in the MG FF. Blockhaj (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    From 20x82mm - a necked-up 20 mm variant of the 15×96mm cartridge. Projectiles were different, yes. That's...kind of understood as its 20mm instead of 15mm. But the cartridge was a direct development. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure but it is shortened as well. We have separate articles for 7.62×51mm NATO and .308 Winchester, and those can essentially not be told apart by eye. Blockhaj (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't a good comparison. Both those rounds are in much wider (and contemporary) use, and the differences between them are much less significant than those between the 15x96 and 20x82. Intothatdarkness 13:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per those above, to provide the context of how this relates to the broader concept of the redirect target. BD2412 T 19:52, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - little more than a dicdef.Onel5969 TT me 21:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment OK, let's say that the deleted material was restored and footnotes added (which is what I recommend for clarity here) to reinforce that the material is wp:ver compliant. And let's say that for an article like this the norm is a slightly lenient / not unusually rigorous interpretation of GNG. We still have a "stats-only" article with just "it existed" type scope, and we are not able to readily evaluate whether the source is even somewhat GNG, and the material being limited to "stats-only" also doesn't indicate broader GNG type coverage in the source. And so far Blockhaj has been more focused on the dispute over the deleted material rather than addressing or arguing the GNG question, which is THE question. Both folks involved in the dispute are blocked from article space for 24 hours, so I don't know if @Blockhaj: can respond here. If sources are available and more content could be developed I think it would be preferable to cover it in an article named for it rather than put inside an article with a different name. Short term (like some progress within 2 days) this would need Blockhaj or any advocate for keeping to convince us that sourcing for such is available, probably by describing or deriving more GNG type content from the current source and/or finding more sources. If that is not done, even under a lenient GNG standard (which I recommend) I see no wiki-valid reason (regarding wp:notability) for keeping this as a separate article and IMO the merge to the article on the successor round would be the best move. If that happens, and then more sources are identified in the future, it could be recreated at that time. North8000 (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is more to add with time, if given, such as its service in the air and why it was eventually superseeded by the 20x82, and also its continued use on the ground (we are mainly talking the addition of projectile damage against different targets here). Development history is also in the pipeline, such as why Mauser went with a 15 mm projectile instead of a 20 mm or 13 mm projectile, etc. Blockhaj (talk) 21:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO the minimum for article space for this is to include some sources that have such coverage. Until then draft space is a good place to develop it to that point. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I will never understand deletionism but then il get a draft going when i have time. Blockhaj (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom and Scope creep. Miniapolis 22:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect but... feels like the proper redirect target is 15 mm caliber not the cartridge it eventually got revised into, to reflect that it did still exist for a time in those dimensions.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 00:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background info: For those uninvolved, this article was created as a stub for further improvement in the future. The entire table was ported from the MG 151 article, as it and its brother (20×82mm) bloated that article. When there was a suggestion to give 20x82 its own article and port that table there, it was obvious and essentially required to do the same for the 15 mm cartridge, however, due to limited time, it had to be a stub.--Blockhaj (talk) 21:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom. Agnieszka653 (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Firearms Proposed deletions

[edit]

The following articles have been tagged for proposed deletion:



[edit]

The following firearms-related RfD's are currently open for discussion:

None at present

[edit]

The following firearms-related IfD's are currently open for discussion:

None at present

[edit]

The following firearms-related MfD's are currently open for discussion:

None at present

[edit]

The following firearms-related TfD's are currently open for discussion:

None at present

[edit]

The following firearms-related CfD's are currently open for discussion:

None at present

[edit]

The following firearms-related Deletion reviews are currently open for discussion:

None at present

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Firearms&oldid=1291519697"