Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claridge Hi-Tec/Goncz 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 no consensus. Mango juice talk 18:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Claridge Hi-Tec/Goncz Pistol

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Raised at WP:AN/I. Doesn't appear notable. Likely advertising. AliceJMarkham (talk) 12:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Seems to be speedied. scope_creep (talk) 12:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. No such luck. Article name contains a / so I had to fix the nom manually. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 13:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Used in Total Recall, now fetching a high price due to their cult status. Asserts notability, Yes, of course. scope_creep (talk) 13:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the article says it's used in Total Recall, but is there any independent evidence of that? The grainy screencap in the article is far from conclusive. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. We'd need an independent source (i.e. indepndent of Concz, who seems to be of a less than stellar reputation for honesty) otherwise it's orignal research. Guy (Help!) 17:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. No refs, either. Jeffpw (talk) 13:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. No refs, no evidence of notability, and it reads like advertising copy, not an encyclopedic article.  Rdfox 76 (talk) 14:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Even if this weapon wasn't used in a film, I see no reason not to be comprehensive in our coverage on fire arms. - Mgm|(talk) 15:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete lack of reliable independent sources, likely advertising. Goncz's website doesn't even mention it, it just sells flashlights. Guy (Help!) 17:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's listed in an editor's note: here. - jc37 (talk) 07:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. No sources, an advertisement, and possible criminal activity that wikipedia shouldn't be made a part of. ThuranX (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Criminal activity? What am I missing? - jc37 (talk) 07:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep (though with a much needed rename - pick one name or the other, and make the other a redirect). The "article" needs cleanup, but that shouldn't be a reason to delete. I am also not thrilled with the obvious lie on the talk page. The rant is rather obviously not from Goncz. ("fluent in 6 languages" for one thing...) - jc37 (talk) 07:59, 19 November 2007 (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.