Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Variara submachine 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.  Sandstein  08:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Variara submachine gun

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable firearm. No English-language reliable sources found, but possible that an Italian speaker could help (or verify that the current reference is valid). ansh 666 08:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666  08:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666  08:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ansh 666  08:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines.--RAF910 (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I am the author of the article and I managed to find two more sources (in English) to improve the article: Daniel D. Musgrave, Thomas B. Nelson The World's Machine Pistols & Submachine Guns - Vol. 2 - Ironside International Publishers Inc., 1980. Ralph Riccio Italian Small Arms, Schiffer Publishing, 2013. -The Hollow Man2010 (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2016 (EST)

The references have to establish "notably" not just that they were made. In other words...What is it about these guns that merit inclusion on Wikipedia? The answer is nothing. The article itself leaves the reader with more questions than answers. How many of these guns were made? Were they all the same? Where were they made? Who made them? Who designed them? There were many homemade weapons used during WW2 none of them are notable on their own. At best they should be redirceted to Insurgency weapons and tactics.--RAF910 (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  17:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * how in-depth do the new sources you've provided go about this weapon? If it's just a passing mention (e.g. a name in a list) then it wouldn't be enough, but if there is a reasonably sized entry on it, then that would be acceptable. ansh 666 23:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  17:27, 24 February 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.