Talk:Accuracy International AX50

This page should not be speedy deleted because...

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --MORNINGSIDE (talk) 09:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC) I am working on creating an article and in the process of slowly adding further information as I go along. Once it is done it will fit the criteria of Wikipedia's terms and conditions.

MORNINGSIDE If you want to work on an article over time you should create a draft. Articles in the main encyclopedia space are expected to be ready to go with content and references. Melcous (talk) 09:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Merge

Merge to Accuracy International AW50 Andy Dingley (talk) 21:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Acceptance through Afc

Looking at this, to me it's got some issues. First, the sourcing:

• Source 1 - this is the company's own site;
• Source 2 - this claims to be a review, but actually just takes you to the NRA main page;
• Source 3 - this takes me to Sniper Central, which looks to me like a blog. If it's not, it's certainly a trade/niche website and I'd like to have an idea of its reliability;
• Source 4 - this also says it's the company's own site but appears to be a blog.

So I'm not sure there's any solid sourcing, let alone "significant coverage". The second issue's the tone. "It ensures superb accuracy and performance in the harshest of conditions". And that's sourced to the company's own site. Way too promotional, I think. And then a bunch of other promotional claims which aren't sourced at all; "the design of the battle proven AW50 and built to withstand sustained, heavy usage", "inheriting all the attributes of its predecessor", "designed with long range precision accuracy in mind", "it is the result of requests from military users for a more accurate anti-materiel weapon". To be blunt, to me it's a poorly sourced advert for a gun. I've asked the editor who accepted for their rationale. KJP1 (talk) 20:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I encouraged this editor to write an article about this rifle because I thought is deserved an article. Unfortunately, as KJP1 has pointed out this, this is more of an advert than an encyclopaedic article. I started to c/e some of the issues, but ended up adding tags as I didn't want to have to re-write the whole thing, and search out actual sources. Perhaps Andy has a point up above where he suggested this be merged to the AW50 page, but at the very least, this should go back to draft. I'm not sure why this was approved. - ^theWOLFchild 22:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Tagging for SD. KJP1 (talk) 08:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@KJP1 and Thewolfchild: I've moved this to the draft space for the moment. If there's no further interest in fixing it, it can be nominated for CSD#G11 once again; it certainly qualifies. Vanamonde (talk) 09:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for not out-right deleting it, I think something can be salvaged here. MORNINGSIDE, perhaps you should consider adding an "AX50 variant" section to the Accuracy International AW50 article, as Andy Dingley suggested? All you would need to do is tone down the promotional/POV aspects of your draft, and find a couple more suitable sources. I just took a quick look at Google, and "Accuracy International AX50" brought up 60,000 hits. Among the first few pages I saw several third-party sources and Google books references. You can still continue to expand and improve the section and a later point, perhaps split it off to it's own page. - ^theWOLFchild 11:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 - many thanks. I've certainly no intention of working to improve it, and equally think it's unacceptable as it stands, hence my G11 when I saw it had gone into main space. If others can and do, perhaps it is salvageable. KJP1 (talk) 11:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@KJP1: Well that comment was largely directed at Thewolfchild, who seemed to indicate interest; so I'm willing to hold off for the moment, although if they are unable to work on this soon, I'd rather delete it now and have them start over. Vanamonde (talk) 11:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I made a suggestion to Morningside, as noted above, and pinged him. Can it wait a day to see if he responds? I'd like to see what he has to say. If he doesn't reply, there would be no opposition from me if you were to delete it tomorrow. - ^theWOLFchild 11:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I Understand all the points you're arguing for. So perhaps I shouldn't of quite submitted it for review, way to soon. I agree with a lot of what you all have said. With that in mind, I still do not think it should be deleted. This is a work in development in my opinion and like others have said, it is salvagable. Meaning it can be corrected so give me time.User:MORNINGSIDE (talk) 11:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@MORNINGSIDE: If you haven't already, I would suggest you save a copy of this draft in your sandbox. If you need more time than they can give you, then you can work on it there and it they delete this draft, you won't lose everything. - ^theWOLFchild 20:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Move

I think the title should be renamed with a more accurate naming. The AX50 is only but one variant of this particular rifle. The name is insufficient as it is naming the specific caliber and not the general rifle itself. Logger in denial (talk) 23:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Going by [1] this source, the AXMC is not chambered for .50 BMG, thereby making the AX50 part of a separate series, and so I'd probably suggest moving it back to its original title. Loafiewa (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Given that the article title seems to be incorrect, I'll move it back to the original title at the end of the week unless someone provides a rebuttal. Loafiewa (talk) 08:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC)