Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IWI X95

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 no consensus. As relisted twice without further discussion and currently no determinable consensus. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 02:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IWI X95

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

The X-95 is simply the current version of Tavor, as designated Micro-Tavor in the IDF. It is the newest version Tavor that has been selected by the IDF since 2009. In Hebrew sources they are called Tavors, or Micro-Tavor versions of the Tavor. They are the main Tavor version produced in Israel, and the main Tavor article should cover them. Tavor X-95 is just an export designation to refer to distinguish it from the Tavor TAR-21. There is also the Tavor CTAR-21. Currently we have a Tavor article for the Tar-21, which makes no sense as the X-95 is the main Tavor in production. So why would the Tavor article only cover the TAR-21 and not the X-95? The Tavor article should primarily cover the X-95 as the main Tavor that is in production, while also covering the TAR-21 and CTAR-21 versions. X-95 should be a redirect to the Tavor article, there is absolutely no reason to create a separate article for the export designation of the new (Micro) Tavor versions.

Avaya1 (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The manufacturer, IWI, decided to separate the X95 and its variants from the original Tavor and its variants. Both are currently offered to customers. X95 has its own variants and features, such as longer barrel version, that do not make sense if X95 is placed as MTAR-21 in the original article (X95 with longer barrel isn't smaller that CTAR-21). BTW, the designation MTAR-21 no longer appears in IWI website, as well as Micro-Tavor. Claiming that 'Tavor X-95 is just an export designation' is original research. Hebrew wikipedia has a dedicated article for X95, and I don't see a reason why Tavor and X95 must appear in the same article here. Besides, the original article for Tavor is way too long and messy to deal with so many versions with different designations. Flayer (talk) 05:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The manufacturer is using the designation Tavor X-95 to refer to the Micro-Tavor or MTAR-21 version of the rifle. It's described as the Micro-Tavor or MTAR-21 in most of the literature, but we can use both designations pretty easily on here, including X-95. Content forking a new article for the main variant of the Tavor makes little sense (especially since this content fork just copies from the main article on the Tavor). The Micro-Tavor is the most common variant of the Tavor now in production (and the only variant of the Tavor that has been selected for mainstream production for the IDF) so it should be covered by the Tavor article.

If you want to look at precedent on this site, we have one article for the Merkava tank, even though there is vastly more variance between its different versions. If you go to M16A2 it re-directs to the M16 article (which is vastly longer). Etc.

"Besides, the original article for Tavor is way too long and messy to deal with so many versions with different designations." The article could be organised better. But this is exactly the reason it should be dealt with on the main article (so that we can explain the different variants in an organised way, instead of content-forking in a confusing way that gives the impression that these are not all 'Tavors'). Avaya1 (talk) 10:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming that "manufacturer is using the designation Tavor X-95 to refer to the Micro-Tavor or MTAR-21" is an original research, because the manufacturer uses only one designation - "X95" (not "Tavor X-95", or "Micro-Tavor X95", оr "MTAR-21"). Some people keep calling it Tavor or Micro-Tavor or MTAR-21, but we shouldn't. Content forking provides a stage where information can be added to the new article, according to the most official and up-to-date sources. These reliable sources do not even mention "MTAR-21". TAR-21, CTAR-21, STAR-21 are one thing, while X95 and its versions are another thing. "MTAR-21" and even "Micro-Tavor" do not exist.

Although surely X95 has been selected for mainstream production for the IDF, claiming that "Micro-Tavor is the most common variant of the Tavor now in production" is purely an original research. X95 should have its own article that should cover its source (Tavor), its variants, and its further evolution in IDF and outside Israel. Tavor has its own history, variants, list of users, and probably future users as well.

Arrow 3, for example, has its own article, that was initially split out from Arrow 2.

We have reliable, official, up-to-date written sources for both Tavor and X95. We should mention each other in separate articles, and we should also mention that many people still use to call them both "Tavor", but these should be different articles. Flayer (talk) 10:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Check carefully the inscriptions on the Israeli X95's in use by IDF. Does it say Tavor or X95? Is it "export designation" inside IDF? 1, ,2, 3. Flayer (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I tagged "sometimes dubbed micro-Tavor" in the article since it seems to be a point of contention here. Due to the profusion of various names, I could not assess the claims made above and will refrain from commenting on content. (Note that if that weapon was (verifiably) called MTAR in the past, then it does not matter that the name has been deprecated by the manufacturer, and it is certainly not OR to give it in the article.)

Right now, IWI Tavor#Micro-Tavor (MTAR-21) and IWI X95 look like a WP:POVFORK. I smell some edit war going under the scenes. I would say that if there are reliable sources that say IWI X95 is the successor of the MTAR-21 (or another denomination of a new version, whatever), even if the manufacturer does not explicitly say so, then merge the whole thing to the Tavor page; if on the contrary there is evidence that the X95 is a really different weapon (e.g. the design was substantially modified), then have a standalone page and trim down severely the Tavor page's subsection. If we do not know, then the unverifiable affirmations flying left and right in both articles should be taken out.

The sources on the Indian version (refs 16 to 18) seem to me to refer to TAR-21, in which case it is misleading to list India as a user of the X95. But again, I do not really understand the whole thing with the names (and yes, I know). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:12, 30 April 2016 (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.