Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cookson repeater


 * 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. Keep. Good luck to the editors: y'all got some work to do. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Cookson repeater

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I originally PROD'd this with the rationale Cool, but unfortunately doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG - I can't find any reliable sources on Google. It was dePROD'd by User:Andy Dingley with this reasoning: It's possible that Cookson repeaters aren't notable, but Cookson is as a maker and the Lorenzoni system is a grave omission at WP. My original concerns still stand. ansh666 19:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll withdraw if we all agree to rename this to Cookson gun (GBooks gives so much more for this title than the original). ansh666 17:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * keep So the first source in there, the Victoria & Albert Museum, isn't WP:RS?
 * This is not a great article - but we are still supposed to work by improving what we have and by discussing, not just blindly reverting other editors and deleting topics we don't understand.
 * I don't know if this one particular weapon meets encyclopedic notability. Whether its maker, Cookson, does or not depends on whether you subscribe to the theory that Coookson (of London), who seems pretty minor, later emigrated to the US and became the rather better known Cookson of Boston (reputable scholars disagree over this). What is very clear though is that WP coverage of firearms needs an article on the Lorenzoni System that this weapon uses (It was one of the first repeaters to work well - apart from an unfortunate tendency to explode in use). I'm really surprised to see there isn't one yet. As a concrete artefact with a good museum pedigree and entirely adequate sourcing to support its inclusion here, this particular weapon could even form the basis for a Lorenzoni article. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd say that yes, it is reliable, but as a primary source it shouldn't be relied on to base an entire article off of, and generally multiple sources are required to show notability in any case. The last paragraph is pretty much irrelevant to this discussion, which is about "this one particular weapon" and not the system that it's based on. ansh666 20:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * DELETE...Whether or not the rifle existed is not the question...Whether or not the sources are adequate is also not the question...The question is whether it's notable or whether it's trivial. While I find it an interesting firearm, I also believe it to be historical trivia. A one of kind firearm, a literal "dead end", whose inventor was struck by lightning while demonstrating his design.--RAF910 (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. I agree with most of what Andy says and could see this article expanded (and renamed) to cover Lorenzoni with perhaps a section on Cookson. As to the argument of not finding sources, that has more to do with a poorly chosen title. A google search on "Cookson gun" will brng forth more sources that should satisfy notability and RS guidelines.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking at some of the other sources today (of the many out there), it seems that the few Lorenzonis in the US were more commonly known as "Cookson guns", after Cookson in Boston. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, that makes more sense. An expansion would require a rename (or separate article), though. ansh666 17:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, "Cookson repeater" would actually start to make sense in such a case (maybe US biased over an Italian invention) and would be a more suitable name than the current one is, to the current one weapon scope. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, but we should call it what the sources call it. ansh666 19:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 07:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, per consensus of discussion above, that there is something notable here, though perhaps should be moved to "Cookson gun" or to "Lorenzoni system" or whatever. All commenters seem to be agreeable to a rename and/or refocus of article.  Also check the following searches:
 * No need to delete and start a new article, better to leave the old article's edit history rather than killing it and depriving contributors of credit in moving this topic along. -- do ncr  am  23:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No need to delete and start a new article, better to leave the old article's edit history rather than killing it and depriving contributors of credit in moving this topic along. -- do ncr  am  23:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No need to delete and start a new article, better to leave the old article's edit history rather than killing it and depriving contributors of credit in moving this topic along. -- do ncr  am  23:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 16:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, this seems a clear case, as there will also be for the sub-article Lorenzoni System. It would seem entirely reasonable to have redirects to (or from) Cookson gun and Cookson rifle (and possibly even Cookson repeating flintlock) as these could also occur as search terms; perhaps Cookson gun should be the primary name: as others have said, there are plenty of hits for this. Notability doesn't seem in any doubt. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to make Cookson repeater into a redirect to Lorenzoni system or Lorenzoni repeater with Cookson as a section within that. However it should continue as repeater, because that's the whole point of this weapon. Plenty of guns beforehand, not many repeaters. These are interesting too:
 * http://firearmshistory.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/the-lorenzoni-repeater.html
 * http://firearmshistory.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/the-cookson-repeater.html
 * Andy Dingley (talk) 20:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a danger of imposing an editorial(izing) view here; if dull-sounding 'gun' is the usual name, we should use that regardless of how non-innovative it seems to editors, interesting blogspots notwithstanding. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:56, 18 October 2014 (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.