Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gebauer 1934.M GKM


 * 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 speedy delete. I'm marking this as CSD G7 since the article creator is asking for deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Gebauer 1934.M GKM

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Subject fails WP:GNG. A BEFORE search revealed no SIGCOV in RS. The cited sources fail WP:SPS so there's no claim of notability. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 04:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Hungary.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 04:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

contribs) 20:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I object to the proposal for deletion due to no significant coverage. This firearm was used by several notable aircraft, and was the basis for tank-mounted designs that saw use before and during WWII. It saw service from 1934 to 1942 in the Hungarian Air Force and is mentioned in the book "Biplane to Monoplane Aircraft Development 1919-39"
 * A Google search for Gebauer 1934.M GKM nets 70,300 results. Admittedly, not all will be relevant (junk pages and bots), but that's no small number.
 * Here are a few that are relevant for coverage:
 * http://www.hungariae.com/Gebauer.htm
 * http://metdetails.com/catalog/dnepromodel/guns/135/3588-gebauer-tank-machine-gun-193437m
 * https://hungarianweaponryww2.wixsite.com/hungarianmilitaryww2/single-post/2018/08/07/aviation
 * http://www.airwar.ru/weapon/guns/gebauer1934.html
 * https://guns.fandom.com/wiki/Gebauer_machine_cannon
 * Those are all from the first page, and even include a resin kit for the weapon.
 * From the second page:
 * https://alternathistory.com/pulemet-gebauer-1934-m-gkm/
 * https://heroesandgenerals.com/forums/topic/49247-hungarian-faction-complete-tech-tree/
 * https://www.google.com/search?q=Gebauer+1934.M+GKM&client=firefox-b-1-d&ei=XuTMYsb6GP-hqtsP7dSGyAo&start=10&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwjGoYa9rvL4AhX_kGoFHW2qAakQ8NMDegQIKhA-&biw=1600&bih=756
 * So obviously there is coverage. Hungariae is a well-known site for Hungarian weaponry that has been around for 13 years, if not more. Airwar.ru has a decently long article with several images of the weapon installed on aircraft. Whether the fandom page is reliable or not is up for debate, but it's a decently long article about all of the Gebauer MGs. Perhaps, like fandom, Wikiwand (https://www.wikiwand.com/it/Gebauer_(mitragliatrice)), and El Gran Capitan (https://www.elgrancapitan.org/foro/viewtopic.php?p=497986), the Gebauer MGs need to go in one article rather than in separate ones. I can see an argument for that and would be glad to start work on it if that's the general consensus.
 * As far as SPS being an issue: That's a large chunk of the web, especially about topics such as this. Wikipedia itself is filled to the brim with references to personal sites. Any journal articles are likely behind paywalls and in Hungarian or German. It's not like a medical topic where you'd expect to see weigh-in from the AAMA or NHS Tengu99 (talk) 00:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The more that I think about it, maybe there really isn't enough to justify an article by itself, but what if all of the Gebauer MGs were listed under the Ferenc Gebauer article? Would that be better? Tengu99 (talk) 00:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: User:Tengu99 after creating this article and working on improving it during this discussion, are you now supporting its deletion? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete None of the websites identified above appear to meet our requirements for reliable sources. For example Hungariae appears to be an anonymously authored WP:SPS, others are links to forums and wikis, etc. I can't find any better sources via quick Google and Google Books searches. There might be better sourcing available offline, but we can't keep an article based on hypothetical sourcing: offline sources need to be actually identified for them to be considered. As for merging to Ferenc Gebauer, a few concerns: 1) That article, too, is in such a bad shape in terms of referencing that I wouldn't be surprised if it was AfD'd very soon 2) given that there's really nothing reliable sourced in this article, I'm not sure what would be merged. Adding a sentence with citation needed tags doesn't really accomplish much of anything. -Ljleppan (talk) 10:04, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * So, I may well be out of place adding this section to this discussion, as it's more of an argument to head off an AfD for the Ferenc Gebauer page before that happens rather than for this particular article, but I feel that the remarks about the growth of Wikipedia articles are valid for both.
 * There are potentially good sources for Ferenc Gebauer, at least in regards to his involvement with Danubia and weapons development, here:
 * http://real-j.mtak.hu/11405/4/Haditechnika%20%202012_4_teljes_red.pdf
 * http://real-j.mtak.hu/11405/5/Haditechnika%202012_5_teljes_red.pdf
 * Those weren't the easiest to find, but not the most terrible. There may well be more in other Hungarian and German sources, but it will take some work digging through records and the sources listed in those articles, hopefully by an expert. Someone with quality access to the Bundesarchiv in Germany or the Hungarian Military History Archive could probably find a decent amount of information on Ferenc.
 * Maybe information for a patent by Ferenc and Pal (https://patents.google.com/patent/US1985493A/en) will be useful, but I'd have to do a bit more research on that as someone would have to positively identify the link between it and the 1934.M GKM, though it might make for a short line in the Gebauer article.
 * I argue that this is how Wikipedia articles grow. They may start small with few and easy to find sources that may not be the most reliable, but as more people take interest better sources are found and more information added.
 * I do get that a lot of web sites aren't a traditionally scholarly source of information. Hungarie, though respected in some communities, doesn't list his sources. Fandom is...iffy? If I were writing a paper then I wouldn't cite it, so I get that. However, I don't think that an article should necessarily be deleted until a more exhaustive search of sources can be conducted. Tengu99 (talk) 02:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Fandom is not iffy, there's a well-established consensus that it is unreliable as self-published user generated content; see WP:FANDOM. Again may well be and could probably find is not sufficient to establish notability; the sources need to be actually identified.
 * It's great that that you found better sourcing for Ferenc Gebauer, but that doesn't really solve the problem where there's nothing in this article that could be merged to Gebauer with a reliable citation. If you do find something in a reliable source, I'm not opposed to merging that. But as it's right now, I don't see what the potential merged content would be. Ljleppan (talk) 08:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Currently adding better sources for both articles. Please have a look. I know it's not much so far, but even an expert author is having to go through a lot of archives to find info about him. Tengu99 (talk) 03:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Added more sources from Hungarian documents. Tengu99 (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't read Hungarian, so it would be great if you could give a brief description along the lines of WP:THREE of what the top-3 sources you found are, why they are reliable and in how much detail they discuss the article subject. Ljleppan (talk) 13:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Database for the Range of Weapons Designer Ferenc Gebauer and Categorization of Firearms Designed By It
 * - Covers this firearm and others designed by Gebauer. Military Historical Notices Number Volume 125, Issue 3, p.677-715. From the Electronic Periodical Database Archive, Budapest. https://epa.oszk.hu/00000/00018/00289/pdf/EPA00018_hadtortenelmi_2012_03_677-716.pdf
 * At the Danube: Hungarians in the 20TH Century (1918-2000).
 * -Use of the 34/37 on sentry boats (gunboats). Encyclopaedia Humana Hungarica Volume 09. https://mek.oszk.hu/01900/01906/html/index7.html
 * Military Technology, year XLVIII, number 4
 * -Focused on a further development, but has information on the 1934.M. Article title: "Faster than Lightning: The 1939M 8mm High Rate of Fire Machine Gun". Hungarian military technology journal. ISSN 0230-6891. http://real-j.mtak.hu/11407/4/HT_2014-4_teljes_red.pdf
 * From the Military Technical Institute of the Royal Hungarian Army to the HM Technology Office 1920 – 2005
 * -Book on Hungarian arms technology, with a section on the Gebauer-féle motorhajtású géppuskák, which includes the 34.M. Hosted by The Digital Content Development and Services Department and the staff of the Web Archiving Department of the Hungarian Electronic Library. ISBN 9789632196664. https://mek.oszk.hu/12900/12993/pdf/12993_1.pdf Tengu99 (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What do covers, has information on and includes mean in practical terms of depth of coverage? A few sentences? Multiple pages? Looking at the last source, for example, I believe the section you are referring to has a single page of prose (followed by two pages of images), of which less than a single sentence appears to be about the article's topic specifically. Ljleppan (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There's just going to be snippets of info here and there about this weapon, so it probably can't stand on it's own. Go ahead and delete it, I'll add the info to the other article. Tengu99 (talk) 18:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Hello. Yes, as the research I did actually backs up Chris Troutman and Ljleppan's points about coverage and sources. There's some coverage, but it's a line here, a few lines there, and so on. Thus it works out better to just move that info into the article about the inventor rather than try to make individual articles about the individual firearms themselves. Thank you, Liz.
 * I do wish to thank Chris Troutman and Ljleppan. This has been a learning experience. Tengu99 (talk) 12:43, 26 July 2022 (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.