Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clarke 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) 04:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Clarke machine gun

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested WP:PROD. This article is based entirely on a patent of 1905 that did not see production. There is a bit of secondary coverage about this patent in a book by Chinn, in the context of the development of revolver cannons (or better said, revlover autocannons, because they involve autoloading from a belt.) I have added the information to the latter article. According to Chinn, Clarke's patent was basically ignored because it came during the heyday of the Maxim and Browning designs; the Mauser developers of the first revolver autocannon were apparently unaware of this patent. There is some unverifiable information in this article as well, e.g. the intended/desired rate of fire, but that's about par for articles created by this group of accounts. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. The only source of information on the internet about this gun is Wikipedia itself and a couple of patent sites. There are no Wiki mirrors, no book references, no blogs, no discussions, no images and no other information. This is without any doubt, not notable enough to be on Wikipedia--RAF910 (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm comfortable with saying Delete to this one. Cant find any information other than whats been brought up. Good job adding relevant information to another, notable article.  Cdtew  (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - WP:ONESOURCE (well, once you add that source into this article), but if it were to be kept it would need a lot of weeding out of unverifiable info; I really doubt it would pass WP:GNG, having been forgotten even at the time. Ansh666 06:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG as outlined by RAF910. Finnegas (talk) 10:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Fails WP:GNG, would need a huge re-write like Ansh said.  D u s t i *poke* 03:14, 9 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.