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 Keep There are several arguments made for deletion, one that the definition of "modern" is debatable, that it is incomplete, that it is unsourced, or that it is "indiscriminate". Not all lists are indiscriminate, and in this case, there is some discriminating information in a sortable table, listing the manufacturer and the nation of origin. The objections concerning sourcing and the title "modern" are valid, but not beyond fixing through normal editing. Mandsford 17:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of modern armament manufacturers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Unreferenced, indiscriminate list. How are "modern weapons and munitions" defined? Who defines them reliably? Probably wildly incomplete, too. A merge proposal seems to have gone nowhere, and I can't see how this can be made to be valuable as-is as it is. Probably fails WP:DIRECTORY too... The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Appropriate summary list, should be more closely linked to the appropriate detailed articles on the manufacturer or weapon, which will provide the references. If limited to those that have Wikipedia articles or sections of Wikipedia articles, how can it possibly be too large for Wikipedia. (And I think 1945 is a conventional cutoff point in military history--I wouldn't object, though, to also merging with earlier periods in a comprehensive list, though it would still be helpful to have one on historical periods) DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not indiscriminate, per DGG, and my arguments on similar weapons lists AfDs. Jclemens (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• What is the "modern" in the title referring to? The concept of a "modern weapon" is very subjective and qualifying weapons (or a line, as in the case of manufacturers) as being "modern" or not is going to involve a lot of conflicting opinions. I believe there have been a few AfDs regarding this term being used in other articles, could someone enlighten me as to how they turned out? However, if "modern" refers to the companies themselves, we have another issue as to what modern means and how the scope is applied. For example, Beretta is an active firearms company, still making and designing new products today. But it's also one of the oldest firearms manufacturers in the world... so does that mean it's modern? What if it's a new company making unmodern weapons? I think that if the scope is more clearly and narrowly defined, then we can easily keep the list. bahamut0013^words_deeds 16:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't speak for AfD, but over at CfD the use of "modern" has been pretty resoundingly nay-ed several times. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - my first year history lecturer was quite clear 'modern' meant after 1500. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Anotherclown (talk) 07:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Good summary list. Appropriate.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2011 (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.