Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baylè 1879 wallet / palm pistol


 * 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.  Sandstein  08:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Baylè 1879 wallet / palm pistol

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable firearm; search in English found nothing - perhaps a French-speaker could help. Created by User:Ctway sock. ansh 666 06:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Buster for finding sources. Now passes WP:GNG. ansh 666 23:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666  06:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ansh 666  06:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines.--RAF910 (talk) 06:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666  07:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  17:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. The "Gun Report" and "Gazette des Armes" articles reproduced on the personal website demonstrate sufficient coverage to pass GNG. I see no advantage to deleting it, though links directly to original articles would be helpful. BusterD (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  17:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC) Comment...the only reference I've found for this gun is the Horst Held Antique Handguns Auction site. They say that there are only three of this guns in existence. We have very little information about this guns history. And, we have nothing to show notability. If your an expert it antique obscure firearms then this gun might be of some note, even a curiosity. However, notability means impact, what is it about this gun that merits a Wikipedia page? There answer is nothing.--RAF910 (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC) Comment...do you have the Gun Report and Gazette des Armes articles in your possession? Have you read the articles? What issues are the articles from? What pages are the articles on? Do you even know what the articles say? Or, did you just see the pictures of them on the Horst Held Antique Handguns Auction site and assume that is enough to meet Wikipedia notability guidelines? The links to those articles that you provided above are worthless and do not meet Wiki standards.--RAF910 (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC) Keep. Coverage is sufficient to meet GNG. This is either a notable item, sufficiently old & obscure that on-line sources aren't so easy to come by; or a magnificently documented hoax. The former seems the far more likely of the two. (NB - even the nominator has concluded that the article meets GNG.) JohnInDC (talk) 12:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. Nothing except at least two articles from diverse reliable sources independent of the subject directly detailing, as reproduced on the web site. This subject passes the general notability guideline, based on those two sources alone. Nothing in guideline or policy says that sources must be online or easily available, only that they can be proven to exist. The reproductions on the site prove these sources exist, and roughly where they can be found. That's enough to pass GNG. The auction website itself is NOT a reliable source for information, so anything its says may not be accurate, but Gun Report and Gazette des Armes both can be judged RS; reproductions of those articles on the website is sufficient to document RS exists. As to WP:IMPACT, that's an obscure essay with little in the way of community consensus. GNG is, of course, the relevant guideline, "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow". BusterD (talk) 02:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I have applied the found sources as citation to the page (Google is a powerful tool). The Grimes article also mentions the September 1962 issue of Guns and Hunting and the December 1962 issue of Shooting Times (Volume 3, issue 12) which contain articles directly detailing this weapon. Four articles appearing in reliable sources which directly detail? This is way past GNG. BusterD (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment User:RAF910 seems to want to personalize this discussion and add personal opinion. Instead I'd prefer to deal with issues of policy and guideline while discussing found sources, some of which which I've applied to the page. I agree with the nominator that this mostly unsourced page was created by a sock puppet and might need to be deleted. However, a closer look at photographs at the single self-published source reveals that several likely reliable sources exist. In order to document the auction item's history, the self-publishing author has scanned in and posted sections of two published articles, giving enough information to verify the articles' legitimacy and existence. Both these articles offer us a reliable source publisher, both of whom have covered such subjects for an extensive time and are regarded well in the gun collecting community. The articles' apparent legitimacy is likely why the auction seller chose them to improve his chances of selling the item. A reasonable online search finds sufficient documentation to verify the original dates of publication of the scanned articles. In my experience, it is neither OR or OS to use existing photographic clues to verify dates of publication, instead results of such searches would fall into the category of reasonable calculation. The text of one of the scanned articles makes it clear that several other sources had previously covered this subject. I've applied all of these, using as much information as I could find in the moment. Given this information framework, later editors should be able to bridge these gaps, given the starting places of each. The significance of these applied sources is for this process to decide, so I don't consider RAF910's opinions valueless. I do however urge !voters to look at the improvements in sourcing since this process has begun. Given the provided sources, this subject meets the general notability guideline, even if these weapons are rare indeed. Finally, as a wikipedian, I am not required to have personally read or used such sources myself, only to verify that reliable sources do exist. I believe I have made a good case that such sources exist and in adequate abundance. BusterD (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment...I agree, as Wikipedians we must assume good faith, and are not required to personally read references in order to verify that they are reliable sources. However, as the editor introducing the references you are required to do your due diligence, which includes actually having access to and reading the references. How else are you suppose to verify the references. You do not have access to those articles, you have not read them and you have no idea what those articles say. For all you know the writer stumbled across these guns and simply wanted to write an article about obscure eccentric antique firearms that are little more trivial footnotes in the history of firearms.--RAF910 (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2016 (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.