Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Postnikov assault rifle

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. postdlf (talk) 04:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Postnikov assault rifle

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

Most of this article is unverifiable. The Russian sources on

WP:GNG threshold anyway. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that the creator of this page was likely [1] a sock-puppet account from a group that has put out a lot of problematic content on firearms; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ctway/Archive. The sources these accounts cite don't always verify the material. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've done some quick lookup and I agree - most of the resources that briefly mention it are either blogs or forum posts. No reliable and easily verifiable sources exist so in its current form the article is absolutely useless and highly unlikely to be improved. 173.68.110.16 (talk) 23:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the same article was deleted once before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/APT assault rifle. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with above...article has already been deleted once before. What little information available is questionable at best and apparently comes from the already deleted article.--RAF910 (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This article as many have said has been deleted before and was added by a past vandal and annoyance to the community. Newsjunky12 (Talk) 00:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Proud member of the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - it's been deleted before, and under a more accurate title, too. Ansh666 06:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By sheer luck and after finding the enlarged version, I've managed to identify the blurry text from that (2nd) slide [2] as being a 100% copy of the sole paragraph about this gun from the book История русского автомата (History of the Russian assault rifle) by С. Б. Монетчиков (p. 190):

Одним из наиболее экзотичных и конструктивно сложных являлся автомат Постникова АПТ (практически сразу снятый с полигонных испытаний), в котором автоматика работала по принципу отвода пороховых газов из канала ствола через затравочные отверстия капсюля патрона. Однако в отличие от исследований В.Г. Федорова и А.А. Благонравова, утверждавших, что для этого нужен специальный патрон с утолщенным дном. И.К. Постникову удалось реализовать подобную схему на штатном 5,45-мм патроне. При выстреле давление пороховых газов через капсюль воздействовало на ударник, двигавшийся назад, тем самым отпирая затвор.

That's basically all that is publicly known about how this gun worked. Монетчиков doesn't say much else about this gun; although it says on the previous page (189) that the gun was one of 12 entered into the August 1984 Abakan trials, it doesn't say how it fared in the contest. On the other hand, the article "У Истоков «Абакана»", from Ружьё. Оружие и амуниция, 1998/1, which is kindly pirated/copied here, while not giving any details about the functioning of the APT gun, says that Postnikov's design was entered into the preliminary trials of August-November 1984, but basically the first to be withdrawn for reliability problems (p. 7). (In the same sentence that article says that another design, TKB-0111, was considered the least promising [of the rest], and was switched to "optional" financing contract status). I think this amount of information can be safely covered in Project Abakan, where the gun was already mentioned, albeit some details were wrong [3]. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. the new info provided the not meet Wiki reference standards and must be verified and translated accordingly. Also, even if it did, a one of a kind prototype does not merit its own Wiki page. And, as suggested above is aready included on the Project Abakan page.--RAF910 (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2013 (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.