Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/.22 Reed Express


 * 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. Although Andy Dingley gives some arguments towards keep, the delete rationales of the other ivoters,including nom, are credibly strong. I find consensus for delete.   Wifione    .......  Leave a message  08:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

.22 Reed Express

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Minor unnotable cartridge. The only source given doesn't say anything about it other than it exists. I couldn't find any other reliable sources. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 00:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Cartridge fails notability requirement. Little outside info apart from reedammo


 * Keep Have you read WP:NOTABILITY? The requirement is for sources to mention the subject, not for it to meet some arbitrary level of "interestingness". Andy Dingley (talk) 00:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It says "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". AliveFreeHappy (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The point of the "significant coverage" qualification is to avoid any need for subjectivity in its interpretation. It's still not a judgement of significance.
 * This is an uninteresting cartridge. It's not innovative, it was never pivotal in relieving the siege of Mafeking. Despite that, it has a name, the crucial dimensions are known, and there's adequate referencing for that much. Maybe neither of us would ever spend the time to create this article ourselves, but none of this is reason to delete it. "Encyclopedic" coverage means wide coverage and listing the dull stuff too. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So let me try to understand. Are you recommending that any cartridge that exists, as established by having a name and dimensions, is inherently notable? AliveFreeHappy (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, as per our clear policy, notability is conveyed by mention in independent sources. This article has that. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well that was precisely my problem, lack of independent sources. I see "steves pages" which isn't WP:RS. And I see self-published, which can't be used to establish notability. I was unable to find anything in my own searches. Believe me, I have a firearms cartridge library that is the envy of everyone I know and I'd love for this to be notable, but I was unable to find anything in print or online outside of reeds and blogs/forums. If you know of something else, please let me know. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * So what's your issue here? Lack of sourcing, or lack of significance? Neither of these are reason to delete, only lack of notability (and that freaky sort of WP:N at that).
 * The current sourcing is rubbish (two dead links, one irrelevant link), but that's WP:SOFIXIT and WP:BEFORE, not AfD. I might be inclined to delete on that basis, except that's not what it was nominated for and (more importantly) there are >9000 Ghits that suggest the sourcing issue is fixable, not fatal. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My point is that I was followed WP:BEFORE and was unable to find any reliable sources to establish notability, therefore I was unable to fix it. The Ghits I could find don't lead anywhere other than forums, blogs, and self-published. Note that limited google search produces far fewer hits, and still nothing WP:RS. As noted, I have extensive books on cartridges and none of them list this either, including obscure out-of-print books. Despite your assumption, I tried first and failed, that's why I nominated it. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's still >5000 GHits of semi-cruft. It's just not credible to assume that a footprint that big doesn't have something behind it. If your books don't mention it, that's probably because it appears to be a very recent development and they just won't have got round to it yet. No-one is asking you to write the thing, just to accept that it exists. As to the SPS issue, then if we grant that the thing's notable, it's legitimate to use Reed themselves to fill in the dimensions. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have tried various means of trimming the google search and at one point had it down to 740+hits. A persual of multiple pages there still found nothing - it's gotten past the point of "sources might exist" - if they do, then someone should list it. WP:ITEXISTS isn't a reason to keep things. It reads "the mere existence does not automatically make a subject worthy of inclusion." AliveFreeHappy (talk) 23:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You could try "-Reed -Express" if you're that persistent. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Absolutely. The cartridge lacks notability. There is no independent sources to collaborate claims. If articles like these can be thrown up on the wiki and stay here. I am going have my own working projects put up on the internet and then come back to the Wiki and writing about it. I have done the searches and found no reliable information. What stops people from writing about some silly subject or project into the wiki? Notability and independent reliable sources. I should write my own bio on Wiki I can source from several sources. But I know better than write myself in. Several school and organizations around and write tnemselves into the wiki and get deleted because of the reasons AFH has mentioned. The Wiki is not a repository of any and every piece of knowledge or information out there, rather it should notable and be reliably sourced. I agree with AFH's line of reasoning. Article need to be deleted. DeusImperator (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the subject has never had significant coverage at any point of time in the past. The article cannot be merged into existing articles. The subject of the article fail each and every one of the guidelines. Significant coverage, reliability, independent of the subject, sources (secondary sources). Arguing that the subject of the article meets this criteria is a loosing proposition. If there is going to be any redeeming value in the article it should be appealed on a different grounds. If there is going to be an article written at present about this cartridge it will have to include forum material as there only "significant coverage". Also it appears that there this might be a work in progress for the moment. The best course is to remove the article and wait until there is some coverage in the future. AT the moment there is no reliable sources. DeusImperator (talk) 00:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Countering, AD concerns that there exists that lack of sourcing or lack of significance is not a reason to delete; well if that was true than nothing will be deleted or can be deleted. Everything that may be insignificant or not sourced cannot be deleted. Obviously we know that is not the case. We do delete insignificant, and unsourced articles when it meets other criteria hence a discussion. If it is insignificant and unsourced we do try to find the information from reliable sources or merge etc; this is were the Wiki project plays its part. I know for a fact that User:AliveFreeHappyhas been diligent in attempting to save articles by finding sources, re-writing, editing etc. Failing a lack of independent reliable sources, articles that do not meet the guidelines should be deleted. Just because it is an encyclopedia does not mean everyone and his dog can get something into the Wiki. That is the way the Wiki looses credibility and becomes repository for useless erroneous unreliable rubbish.DeusImperator (talk) 03:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Delete. No independent sources to verify notability. Figureofnine (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions.  —AliveFreeHappy (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.