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 delete. Kartano is free to use the same sources and info to create articles on individual weapons. If the content of this article is needed just ask me or any other administrator. Chick Bowen 01:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Australian International Arms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable company. Article is basically just advertising. No independent, third-party sources have been cited. NSH001 (talk) 14:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator --NSH001 (talk) 11:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not only are no sources given, it seems that little to nothing is known by gunenthusiasts re the firm (see http://www.303british.com/id41.html for an example). Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, only just. I think the company is known around gun shooting circles. A few gun magazines and a book mentions AIA.--Lester 04:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• My apologies. As the page creator, I am a gun enthusiast but I am not involved with AIA in any way. As a range safety officer however, I do see many firearms and have had a chance to examine these rifles closely. When I am able to obtain one, I can provide technical detail showing the differences between these "un-Enfield" rifles and their original Service counterparts. I have added some further external sources as well. More will follow as I do research. In shooting circles, the AIA made rifles are well known by word of mouth and are a topic of discussion at several Miltiary Rifle meets. Kartano (talk) 04:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment If the article is to stay, it needs to cite multiple, independent third-party reliable sources. See WP:V "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." For what constitutes a reliable source, see WP:RS. --NSH001 (talk) 11:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I've been able to obtain issues and references to publications. I will endeavor to obtain these and use further information from those in the article with appropriate referencing. Kartano (talk) 02:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While the weapon may be notable and worthy of coverage in Wikipedia, the company AIA appears to be unremarkable and therefore lacking adequate notability to meet the primary criterion specified in WP:COMPANY. WP is not a trade directory. Dolphin51 (talk) 02:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Could this be re-written with a focus on the firearms themselves rather than the company? Kartano (talk) 03:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion some of the content might be profitably merged to the main article about the Number 4 Lee-Enfield rifle perhaps Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I like that idea. As the rifles are based on that action (in point of fact designed specifically to look like abd are designed AROUND the No. 4 rifles) this would make sense too. Any takes on this idea? Kartano (talk) 02:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggestion I should go ahead and do it -- be bold.
    • Delete, not a notable company, but could do with an article on the weapons instead.
• Suggestion The consensus seems to be to delete this page and to produce articles that focus on the rifles. I'm not sure that this can be merged with the article on the No. 4 rifle (as these are based on the same ACTION but are not the same RIFLE) but I could certainly work on articles based on the actual firearms themselves. RFC? Kartano (talk) 02:59, 29 July 2008 (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.