RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Assault rifle

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Assault rifle | Result: Merged into Gun[edit]

Assault rifle (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)


  1. "An on-mission article about assault rifles, their place within gun culture, gun crime & the gun control debate is feasible. The current version is instead devoted wholly to guncruft & pedantry around the definition of the term, something that's a common feature (& derailing tactic) in debates about assault weapon ownership, but doesn't serve any of our missions. Cutting & pasting it from one page to another doesn't fix this. It either needs a complete rewrite or deletion." Damn straight, Weaseloid. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 18:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Delete without prejudice for non-shit actually-missional coverage of the topic - David Gerard (talk) 13:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


  1. So rewrite it. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 19:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. I don't feel that "pedantry around the definition of the term" is a "derailing tactic." The term is used incorrectly, often to trick people into thinking that civilian semi-automatic rifles that look like military fully-automatic rifles are actually fully-automatic themselves. --Tracer (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. If you don't like it, re-fuckin-write it. PBfreespace (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. I think it seems missional, and there's not a ton wrong with how it's written. Applesauce (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


  1. Merge/redirect into gun, moving what's useful into there. I think that a certain amount of genuine information about the weapons themselves is warranted. We shouldn't need to be "derailed" by it, but we can't be completely ignorant of it either. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Is a type of gun. A bit of information might be interesting because of the gun control debate, but a separate article is probably not needed.--JorisEnter (talk) 15:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. As long as appropriate emphasis is laid on how the term is misused in aid of FUD propagation, or, in Zero's words, "how utterly useless the term is in politics since it means different things to different people." Alec Sanderson (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


  1. I'm okay with anything really. My entire point of the article was to show how utterly useless the term is in politics since it means different things to different people. Zero (talk - contributions) 15:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)