Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kbk wz. 2002 BIN


 * 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.  Sandstein  18:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Kbk wz. 2002 BIN

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable prototype firearms; no reliable secondary sources were found for either, though a Polish language search may help. At best, they deserve a sentence or two in the FB Beryl article, which they're based on. Also, created by socks of ancient puppeteer User:Jetwave Dave, who was known to include copyvios and false data. ansh 666 02:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666  02:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666  02:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. ansh 666  02:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

DELETE... This is a one-of-a-kind prototype. I agree no reliable sources to meet General Notability Guidelines.--RAF910 (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree that this doesn't meet GNG. Maybe User:Halibutt can did some sources on notability of this? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 19:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd say keep and improve as prototype firearms are normally considered notable enough. I could source the articles, but they're going to get deleted anyway, so there's no point, right?  // Halibutt 20:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm...where did you get "prototype firearms are normally considered notable enough"? I don't think there's a notability guideline on it. Just wondering, not trying to discredit you or anything. ansh 666 21:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- not every prototype is notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:16, 20 July 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.