Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paltik

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. Also, any discussions on whether to merge this to a hypothetical future List of improvised firearms does not need to be at AFD. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paltik

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

Really belongs in improvised firearm; only differs from others by the name used locally. Anmccaff (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Paltik definitely meets GNG. There is quite an industry for producing these, a large market, and quite a bit of sources (which are absent in the low quality article). The question here really is about merging to improvised firearm while leaving a redirect to the section there. Paltik, Galkatas, and Improvised firearm (which seems to be focused on the really improvised side as opposed to more organized low-scale production by blacksmiths and metal shops) all need improvement. I'm undecided beyond this not being a delete (so keep or merge).Icewhiz (talk) 13:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Paltik industry definitely passes GNG, and Paltiks have common characteristics between themselves that differentiate them from other metal shop weapon production in other parts of the world. Improvised Firearm is a poor merge target - focusing on much lower grade firearms.Icewhiz (talk) 06:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Icewhiz, I think your logic is clearly suggesting the merge is the proper way to go. Consider zip gun. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These are a "step up" from a zip gun - which is really improvised and homemade. Here we have manufacturing by metal workshops - so small batches of similar weapons (as well as some commonality in the region) - it's basically the way pre-industrial swords or early firearms (e.g. Tanegashima (Japanese matchlock)) were made. Icewhiz (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But it does not appear to be a "step up" from the hundreds of other examples of improvised firearms which have plagued the world for too long. Is there anything fundamentally different between this industry and, say, the blacksmiths that made similar weapons in Armenia during the Turkish suppression, or the Mau Mau weapons? The improvised firearm covers the spectrum of weapons from poor quality to "high-quality arms produced by cottage industries", which seems to be precisely where this falls. What am I missing? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Maury Markowitz: The term itself does meet GNG. The source of my vacillation is the article focus of Improvised firearm, which also states in the lead - An improvised firearm is a firearm manufactured other than by a firearms manufacturer or a gunsmith (emphasis added) and focuses on homemade guns. The Paltiks are an example, to my understanding, of manufacture by a gunsmith (or people who could be seen as gunsmiths) in low-rate serial production (note - the actual Paltik article doesn't really reflect this - and quality of the Paltik article is poor) - see here - Philippine gun makers take aim from the backyard to the production line (Reuters 2012)(referring to gunsmiths who make Paltiks) or 1997 AP video - showing a Palik production shop. Improvised firearm would require quite a bit of work and rewrite to accommodate these properly.Icewhiz (talk) 14:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay with either Keep or Merge to Improvised firearm. I've added refs to the article and cut some of the uncited text. I'm okay with either suggestions. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted, this passes WP:GNG. Improvised firearm is a more general topic. List of improvised firearms might be something worth creating, but for now, this is worthy of being independently kept. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is simply the Filipino word for home made gun. It is not a recognized English language term and has no meaning outside was the Philippines.--RAF910 (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of those are policy-based reasons to delete; indeed the second falls foul of WP:CSB... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:59, 21 November 2017 (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.