Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SDK carbine


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

SDK carbine

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I am not convinced this gun actually existed, or if it did, as any more than a one-off or prototype. I have been unable to find any reliable reference to it either on the internet or in any of my reference books and the article itself provides dubious references at best. This article appears to have been written using third hand information and hearsay, and I do not believe it can be improved as there just doesn't appear to be any information on the subject available to either verify or improve the article with. Commander Zulu (talk) 01:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   —Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Had a look myself, could be a hoax. Ryan 4314   (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I have an inkling that I've got some information on this tucked away and it rings a bell. I'll hit the books and see what I dig up.  Justin talk 18:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge and delete Seems to be De Lisle carbine. I say merge the blurb and delete the article. §FreeRangeFrog 20:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Oh, and probably keep the redirect. I can take care of it if AfD reaches consensus, but I don't want to tag it right now. §FreeRangeFrog 20:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The DeLisle Commando Carbine is a completely separate gun for which a number of reputable print, web, and photographic references exist. The SDK Carbine is, as far as I can tell, fictional, or, at very best, a prototype. Given the intense interest in WWII German firearms in the US (and elsewhere), I would expect there to be at least as much information on the SDK Carbine as there is on the DeLisle. The fact that a Google search turns up nothing of note, and that none of my reference books mention the SDK Carbine, I can confidently say that it's got nothing to do with the DeLisle Commando Carbine and it probably didn't exist in the first place. In short, there's nothing to merge, IMHO. Commander Zulu (talk) 11:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Nukes4Tots posted this on the SDK Carbine article's talk page: "Delete this article. This is a pure user:Jetwave Dave fabrication. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 17:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)" (Posted here by Commander Zulu (talk) 11:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC))
 * Keep Does in fact exist, pictures here . Justin talk 12:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment That's the only non-wiki reference to the gun (besides a paintball gun website) I was able to find and it's not in any way reliable. There's nothing in Small Arms of the World, nothing in any of Ian V. Hogg's books, nothing in A.E. Hartink's various books on guns, nothing in any of the myriad other gun books (ranging from Serious And Respected Academic Reference Works to Glossy Colour Coffee Table Books) that I have access to. In short, there are no reliable references to this gun existing, and even if it did exist, there's still no reliable references to back anything in the article up at all. Commander Zulu (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Response There were a lot of odd little weapons produced by the Germans for their Special Forces. Its such a fringe subject that there are few references for them.  Justin talk 13:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ReplyThat's very true, but the Hitler History Channel has been running various shows on pretty much every aspect of WWII for years, and I don't recall ever seeing them mention it (and they seem to make shows on even less notable WWII topics, IMHO). The SDK Carbine is just such an odd and unusual German WWII gun that I'm staggered no-one has mentioned it in print or TV documentary for over 30 years. I'm willing to concede the gun may not be a hoax, but I still don't think there's enough reliable information available to justify a dedicated Wiki article on the gun.Commander Zulu (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply It is still bugging me, I've heard of this before but can't find where at the moment. Justin talk 14:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * From an old gun book possibly? You are a man of *cough* advanced age, so you might remember it from the first time around? -- Narson ~  Talk  • 17:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not doubting your memory, but I do think we need more than "I vaguely recall seeing it in a gun magazine in the 1960s" as a reference. Like I said, I'm prepared to acknowledge this gun might have existed, but the current article is completely lacking in reliable and verifiable sources, which is also grounds for Deletion, AIUI. Commander Zulu (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * My instinct here was for delete, all Icould find was the same person posting it to various forums. However, on one of the forums one of the gun nuts recognises it and identifies it as being from Waffen Revue Nr. 20, 1976 publication. He also suggests it was in some US magazines of the 60s and 70s. Might be worth checking out the paper sources. Also apparantly in Saga magazine April 1970 (Both sources are listed in the article). The gun itself may be a hoax, the article is not. Pending confirmation of the paper soures, Keep. -- Narson  ~  Talk  • 13:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep if Narson's thoughts check out, delete if they do not. Someone may want to go through the rest of DaBallScractha's contribs if this is proven to be a hoax... — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  02:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is an image of it on the front page of the Waffen Revue n.20. I think we may be up against our bias for online resources at the moment. Do we have anyone with access to any of the two journals listed as sources? -- Narson ~  Talk  • 09:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The "gun nut" posting it in various forums is none other than your friend and mine, Jetwave Dave. I would take a pretty large grain of salt with anything posted by him. Parsecboy (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as the lack of sources means that this doesn't pass WP:N, even if the gun did exist and WP:V can be met (which it isn't at present). Forum posts are in no way reliable sources. Nick-D (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Real or not, we still have no evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Jetwave Dave championing it on forums only makes it more suspect. Maralia (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Information The article is in error, its not SDK Carbine but GSDK (Gestapo SchallDämpfer Karabiner).  It was made by J.P Sauer & Sohn, Suhl, it used 9mm parabellum but was tailored for nahpatrone, which was a reduced power round intended for target practise at reduced ranges.  Found nothing on cyanide tipped ammunition, that seems fanciful.  Seems that less than 10 were made.  Justin talk 03:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Where did you get that from? Thanks for the help :) — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  04:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It was from a gun nut I know on another forum, he doubts that you'll find the information in a reference book as its so obscure. Justin talk 09:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Which brings us back to our original point that the article is unverifiable and should be deleted.... Commander Zulu (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It lists two gun magazines, one of which definatly featured it. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 14:37, 9 February 2009 (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.