Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blackmore machine gun


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 17:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Blackmore machine gun

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Another gun article created entirely from a patent, which is a WP:PRIMARY for WP:GNG purposes. I can't find any secondary coverage for it myself. Someone not using his real name (talk) 11:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 11:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is not a notable firearm. Wikipedia and Wiki-mirrors appears to be the only sources of information for this gun. If we allow every firearms patent to have a Wiki page, then we will end up crashing the servers.--RAF910 (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * More likely bore the reader to death with a hundred thousand stubs like this and glut the gun navbox templates so bad that they crash web browsers. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete For a specialist weapon such as this I would expect evidence that it was at least trialled for adoption by the armed services of a major power, or some other exceptional reason for considering it as notable. Without reliable sources I do take exception to the use of the present tense in the article; as commented elsewhere there is a world of difference between patent designs, which can be considered 'vapourware', and the physical object, and even in a stub that should be made clear. If the editor knew of an extant example of the gun he should have provided a source, if all he knew of it was the patent he should have made that explicit. Stubs are necessarily short - they should not mislead. I do not object to use of patents for providing details of a design because if the gun had been manufactured in accordance with the patent it might be the best, and possibly only, source for its construction and policy permits that. But it cannot establish notability. --AJHingston (talk) 11:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per above as failing WP:N. Ansh666 20:37, 15 July 2013 (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.