Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MACS M3

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 no consensus. Any blowing up and starting over can be done by editors being bold and simply doing it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MACS M3

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable firearm, can't find any reliable sources. ansh 666 01:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 01:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 01:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 01:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This reference is no longer available, and doesn't appear to be archived, but I think coverage by Jane's, publisher of Jane's Fighting Ships, establishes notability. There is an article in the Croatian Wikipedia at hr:Teška snajperska puška MACS M3 Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NPRODUCT; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge (selective) to Zastava M93 Black Arrow per this source - seems this is a Croatian variant of the same Yugoslav design.Icewhiz (talk) 10:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge with Zastava M93 Black Arrow per Icewhiz --RAF910 (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz and RAF910: that isn't true. The MACS M2 (which the M3 is based on) seems to have began manufacture in 1991 in Croatia, while the M93 began in 1998 (though there are no reliable sources for either, it seems). The source says they use similar actions, but doesn't say anything about being actual variants. ansh 666 19:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I meant both being variants/developments of a common Yugoslav action - not the M3 being based on the M93. But I guess similar action is not sufficient. Need a better source though - striking.Icewhiz (talk) 19:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I don't think it's very notable, but there are plenty of reliable sources on Google. So, I vote Keep, at least for now.--RAF910 (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: PS I'm moving this to the product AFD, which might be a more suitable category for this AFD. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2 I have to disagree with Eastmain here. If the article link used as a reference is dead, and it's not in archives, there is no way to verify it. Therefore, it might as be consider as nonexistant. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Umm - no - we use offline sources routinely - including those that were never online to begin with. Furthermore coverage by Jane's is quite likely given that there is coverage by Jane's online - e.g. this book (snippet view).Icewhiz (talk) 06:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was talking about East's comment about dead links. Websites that was active but not longer. So the page content cannot be seen by anyone beyond the person inserting the ref.

They're hard to verify. That's like pointing a reference to a book that is no longer accessible. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 07:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG due to coverage in GBooks and elsewhere. James500 (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not satisfied by the Jane snippet view: [1]; it may very well be passing mentions. Jane probably mentions many firearms routinely; the confirmation of existance does not mean WP:SIGCOV. None have been offered at this AfD so far. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 19:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Red Phoenix ^talk 14:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – blow it up and start over per WP:TNT. This appears to be notable but the article has so many issues that probably can't be fixed so soon. Definitely restart the article, but as is, it is awful. It's at a point of no return to being good. Redditaddict6 9 03:32, 29 August 2018 (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.