Talk:Sturmgewehr 58

Nominated for deletion

I have nominated this article for deletion as it is a repetitive stub. All of the material in this article is listed in the article FN FAL, as is data on all other FN FAL variants. CMarshall (talk) 09:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

FN FAL

The statement that the StG 58 is based on the FN FAL is inaccurate. The StG 58 is an FN FAL.

This article should be deleted, and some of its content rolled into the FN FAL article. There is no separate article for the Commonwealth variant of the FN FAL (the L1A1 SLR). Why does the Austrian variant (which has far fewer changes, and no combat history) warrant a separate article? CMarshall (talk) 13:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you ask at German WP, which is where this came from & where there are separate pages. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Why should we ask the German WP about a deletion here? If you disagree with what I am saying, please say so. CMarshall (talk) 08:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Because the reasons for it being separate would seem to be better explained where the page originated than here; if it's good enough to survive there, I would suggest it's good enough to survive here. I claim no knowledge of it, nor much feeling on it past having tinkered with the Google translate to reproduce it here. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 09:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The judgment on whether an article on a particular Wikipedia should not be retained rests with the users of that Wikipedia. As far as it stands, you haven't argued for this article's inclusion at all. The reason for deletion is that the topic of this article is simply not notable. This isn't something that we actually need to ask the German Wikipedians about. Why they created the page is less important than the standards, rules, and conventions of the English Wikipedia community.

This article concerns a version of the FN FAL. This version (unlike the Commonwealth version) has no significant technical or engineering changes compared to the standard FN FAL. Unlike the Commonwealth FN FAL, it has never been used in battle.

All of this article's content is replicated on the FN FAL page. Find something in this page that is not already mentioned in the linked page (Austrian FN FAL). The Austria section of the FN FAL mentions the manufacturer, service length, exterior changes, competitors for Austrian purchase, replacement, and Austrian designation. The table at the top of the article lists the specifications of the rifle. That list is this article.

As it stands, the FN FAL article currently lists the service histories for each user, and the technical changes for each version. It also lists the wars in which the FN FAL was used. The FN FAL article is truly encyclopedic, whereas this article is a repetitive stub.

My questions to you are as follows:

Will the German Wikipedians be able to rebutt anything I've said?

Is there ever a good reason to make an article which is not notable, and says nothing not said elsewhere?

If you and the German Wikipedians can't answer those questions, I don't see much point in asking them.CMarshall (talk) 13:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Would you care to explain why you're so exercised over this? As noted, I really don't care much. If you think it deserves deletion, AfD is available. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)