Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperNova (firearm)

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 into Benelli Nova. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SuperNova (firearm)

Tagged for speedy delete as advertising, tag twice removed by the same editor (see talk page discussion and history). No sources indicating notability, indeed no independant sources at all. No reason why this particular model of shotgun is significantly different from all other shotguns Wikipedia is not a product guide. Reads like a product flyer, particuarly such details as the lsit of available finishes. Remove such details, and what is left is a nearly empty stuvb, and one that there there seems no prospect of expanding. DES ^(talk) 23:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my nom, as not-notable, as per WP:NOT, and as per WP:SPAM. DES ^(talk) 23:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this article is about a well known shotgun by a well known company, the article should stay, it is not advertising, it is a weapon that is notable. PianoKeys 23:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What is it notable for? In what way is it significantly different from othe simialr weapons? Where has it recieved non-trivial published discussion in independant (that is, not by the manufacturer) reliable sources. Yes it passes WP:V, it can be proved to exist. How does it pass WP:N and WP:NOT? Merely because the manufacturer is notable (presuming that they are) does not make every product of theirs notable. DES ^(talk) 23:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For a brief debate on a closely related article, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperNova (Shotgun). DES ^(talk) 23:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It always fascinates me when people that know zero about a subject nominate it for afd, because they personally don't know about it. This is one of Wikipedia's weaknesses. PianoKeys 09:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert on firearms, no. I do know enough about them to know that they are products, indeed commodities, like any others, and that most particular models aren't in any way notable. I also know spam when I see it. I note that you have not seen fit to answer any of the questions asked above. If you are an expert on this product and why it is notable, please explain it to the rest of us. The article does not do so currently, nor does it have any sources that so much as hint at notability -- indeed it has no sources at all that are independent of the manufacturer. Lets discuss the article, not my level of knowledge, please. DES ^(talk) 15:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The SuperNova won the 2006 Academy of Excellence Award, which is indeed a notable award in the firearms industry. Evouga 06:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement that people know something about a subject on wikipedia to be able to comment on it. The whole point of an article is to tell people something they may not know. If an article doesn't tell you something you need to know like why the product is noteable then it's the editors fault not the readers fault that they don't know. Nil Einne 07:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge Could this fit anywhere? Otherwise, fails WP:NN Kevinwong913 ^{Speak out loud!} 21:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NN.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - anyone care to write WP:JUSTANOTHERSHOTGUN? :-D /Blaxthos 11:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a notable firearm, but the article is just plain advertisement (especially given the "five different finishes" section). All I can gather from the specs is that it has a comfortable grip, a little less recoil than the average shotgun, and it is light and durable. Unless it can see through walls or do something truly amazing above all other shotguns, besides kill better, there is no need for this to have its own article. --David Andreas 18:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is a notable firearm, an article on it ought surely to be kept, albeit not in advert form. -- SockpuppetSamuelson
Merge/Move if kept, the proper article title would be Benelli SuperNova per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Firearms#Naming. Merge information with Benelli Nova (I'm assuming that it's the same shotgun line, just different models - the article implies this at this point.) As far as "advertising" goes, please define how this article is advertising? Especially cf. to Hawken rifle or USAS-12, or other firearms listed in Wikipedia. Yes, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not the best way to advocate in AfDs. But how is this different from other classes of firearm articles on WP? LaughingVulcan 22:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/move into Benelli Nova, per WP:GUNS#Naming, and WP:GUNS#"Target" versions. The gun at hand is just a Nova with some slight differences in the stock, and doesn't warrant its own article, but does warrant a section in Benelli Nova.--LWF 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/move into Benelli Nova, per WP:GUNS#Naming, and WP:GUNS#"Target" versions. This content would help add more detail to Benelli Nova.-- Yaf 00:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Benelli Nova, for the reasons above. --SXT40 18:55, 30 June 2007 (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.