Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Small Arms Weapons Effects Simulator

:{{la|Small Arms Weapons Effects Simulator}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Small_Arms_Weapons_Effects_Simulator Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Small Arms Weapons Effects Simulator}})

Non-notable military training system; a search turned up no reliable sources. Created by User:Ctway sock. ansh666 08:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

:I'll accept Andrew's judgment on this one. Thanks, ansh666 23:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh666 08:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh666 08:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ansh666 08:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. A very notable system when it was in use. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

::That is pure WP:ITSNOTABLE, and moreover, WP:NTEMP. Tigraan (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

:::I think you need to reread WP:NTEMP. It doesn't say what you obviously think it does! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

::::The system may have been "very notable when it was in use" but having sunk into oblivion since then, in which case it is not notable by the Wikipedia meaning of the word. I am not saying it happened so, but "notable when in use" is a weak argument precisely because of NTEMP. Tigraan (talk) 10:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• Delete - almost all of the few sources that turn up at a search for "Small Arms Weapons Effect Simulator" (with the quotes) are people selling that thing (ebay listings, among others) with no discussion whatsoever. I litteraly could read them all, except one in Polish. While the subject is ancient, getting zero relevant results (not even a few shady sources) is a good indication of non-notability. Tigraan (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm puzzled as to how the main small arms blank-firing effects simulation system for the entire British Armed Forces could possibly be non-notable. Try searching for SAWES instead of the full name; you'll find plenty of sources.[https://www.google.co.uk/search?safe=off&espv=2&q=SAWES+british+army&oq=SAWES+british+army&gs_l=serp.3..35i39.9335.12839.0.13047.6.5.1.0.0.0.135.523.2j3.5.0....0...1.1.64.serp..0.6.524.74DAae8r9Qc] And doubtless there'll be far more print sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
• {{ping|Necrothesp}} all I'm seeing are Wikipedia mirrors/other wikis, sales catalogs, forums, and blogs. Nothing reliable. (Also, Sawes is a semi-common British name and, as I just discovered, an archaic spelling of "saws"!) ansh666 01:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
• Maybe you should follow the link I gave you which cuts out the other meanings of sawes quite effectively! Note that we are here to evaluate the notability of the subject, not the quality of the article. I think the online sources clearly indicate the notability of the subject and suggest that there will be plenty of offline sources out there. Note what it says in WP:NEXIST. We can presume that sources exist if the subject is clearly a notable one. And I fail to see how anyone could seriously say that a major system in use by a major world army for a number of years could possibly not be notable and not assume that there were plenty of sources out there. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
• ...well, I found all those other meanings of "sawes" from the search you linked. ansh666 10:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

:I agree that shaky online sources may be sufficient to presume notability. Say for instance that plenty of blogs and fan sites (unreliable sources) point to some book devoted to the subject that alledgedly sold a million copies. Even if the book itself cannot be checked online, if claims of existence and success are established, the book can be presumed to be significant coverage etc.

:The problem here is that I see no such reason to presume notability. {{U|Necrothesp}}, it may be obviously notable to you and rightfully so because you know the subject better than other contributors, but so far I have seen no evidence that it was a major system in use by a major world army for a number of years (emphasis on the first "major").

:Google search results differ from user to user, because Google spies on you to sell advertising data tailors results to your former searches and web hits. That may explain why ansh or myself (I use another search engine by default) did not find sources. Could you point to one or two of them that in your opinion are quite reliable and somewhat significant coverage of the subject? Tigraan (talk) 10:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

::I'm not sure how else you would describe the system used to simulate combat used by the British Army on exercises. Of course it was a major system. If MILES is worthy of an article then surely so is this. I agree that there is not great online coverage (unsurprising given its age), but there is certainly enough to confirm that it was a widely-used system that was important to a major army. That is sufficient to establish that the subject is notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

:::You keep saying notability is obvious, and it might be to an expert in the topic, but please consider that you none else than you sees it in this discussion. Having being used (even on a large scale) by the UK army does not in itself make something notable. Please provide the best online sources, even if they fall a bit short of establishing notability, or offline sources (which are perfectly fine, just harder to find and check). The WP:BURDEN is on you... Tigraan (talk) 10:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

::::Pinging {{U|Necrothesp}} for sources... Tigraan (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

MERGE...It is basically the British version of Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System and should be merged with that page. The Brits simply have their own idiocentric naming systems.--RAF910 (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• Found a video of it on You Tube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpV3Ua3QEMI the Kiwi's call it the Infantry Weapons Effects Simulation Systems (IWESS) it's made by Cubic Defence New Zealand https://www.cubic.com/News/Press-Releases/ID/152/Cubic-Defence-New-Zealend-Supplies-Simulation-Systems-to-Denmark . They also refer to it as MILES https://www.cubic.com/Global-Defense/Training-Systems-and-Solutions/Ground-Combat-Training/Multiple-Integrated-Laser-Engagement-System . As I stated above, I think it should be Merged or Redirected to the Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System page--RAF910 (talk) 06:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
• What an odd comment. So it performs the same function as the American system so it should be merged into the article on the American system? Maybe we should merge all our articles on individual assault rifles into the M16 rifle article too? What do you reckon? After all, they all do the same thing so they must all actually be versions of the American one! Seriously, it's not a British version of MILES; it's a completely different system that performs the same function as MILES and was developed at about the same time. Other countries can develop technology too you know! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
• A better analogy is Assault Rifle. There is only one true assault rifle, the German Sturmgewehr 44. The first of its kind. Then the Russians made the the AK-47 and the Americans made the M16, and so on. Today we call all of these weapons Assault Rifles because they share common traits. There are countless references to support the American MILES system. There are few reference to support the British SAWES. And, as I stated above, the Kiwi's not only call it the IWESS they also call it MILES. The term MILES has become the common name for this type of technology. Therefore, I see no reason why we shouldn't merge or redirect to the MILES page.--RAF910 (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

:Assuming the British system is not worth a standalone article (see discussion above), I disagree with a merge on the MILES page. If significant content from the SAWES page is to be kept, I think the best would be a general page for those systems (say, Laser simulation of small arms fighting - that title is not great, but you get the idea; is there an established technical name?), with specific sections for the local variants if there is enough content or a list of them, to which all their titles redirect. On the other hand, if no content is to be merged, I would agree with a short mention on the MILES page and possibly a redirect (but that is different from a merge).

:In any case, this is subordinate on the notability status of the SAWES system, and it would be good not to start in a US vs UK feud. Tigraan (talk) 10:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• Keep The topic is notable, being covered in sources such as Jane's Military Training and Simulation Systems; New Scientist; Armed Forces Journal International; &c. Andrew D. (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
• Keep per Necrothesp and Andrew Davidson. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
• Keep If it's in Jane's (it is) and is a significant reimplementation of MILES (it seems to be) then it's notable.

{{clear}}

: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.