Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brightman anti aircraft 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. Further, itt seems like the text is not useful for other articles, so no merge. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Brightman anti aircraft machine gun

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability:the only reference is a patent and no evidence can be found that the gun was ever in significant use (despite online and library searches). Initial discussion of a merge is at Talk:Volley gun; the result of that merge discussion was this deletion proposal Klbrain (talk) 11:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. No indication that even prototypes were made or that the military gave this weapon any consideration. Per WP:PATENTS, a patent alone is not sufficient to establish notability under WP:GNG. SpinningSpark 13:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I found nothing. Vaporware.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, per nom. No showing of notability, nor any RS citing as to one being built, tested or used. Kierzek (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: no RS and no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Like everyone else, I also found nothing of note.--RAF910 (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I too have found nothing. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  02:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to volley gun. A single patent as a source is enough to support a brief note in that article. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree. As I said in the original merge proposal, there are numerous similar patents.  There is nothing special about this one except that it has a Wikipedia article.  Keeping it on Wikipedia because it is already on Wikipedia is circular reasoning. SpinningSpark 13:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The point is that this isn't a "machine gun", in the general sense of a recoil(sic) activated automatic repeater. It's a volley gun of the mitrailleuse type, a type which was notable once but would generally considered obsolete by the 1930s. It's not notable, but the idea that new volley gun designs were still being considered in the 1930s does have relevance to the volley gun article. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Where did I, or anyone in this discussion, say that I thought this was a machine gun? All the links to patents I gave in the original discussion (and I am sure there are many more) are for volley type weapons.  The Brightman gun is not even the most recent.  The first in my list of links was published 1973, and even that is not the most recent.  You say that this gun was being considered in the 1930s, but you have offered no evidence that it actually was.  There is no demonstration reported, no development contract, no discussions with the military, not even a report in the press.  We simply don't report at Wikipedia every crazy patent that ever was. SpinningSpark 14:18, 24 September 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.