Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vortex Flash Hider


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Vortex Flash Hider

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional material without encyclopaedic value. The article is nothing but an ad for the Vortex Flash Hider from Smith Enterprises. Thomas.W  talk to me  18:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as nominator. Thomas.W   talk to me  10:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: AfD nomination implies deletion—no need for a separate bullet. czar   &middot;   &middot;  18:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep this is a notable flash suppressor design and is part of the US and Candanian Military Inventories.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: FYI Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ is the creator of the article as well as a number of other mostly promotional articles about Smith Enterprises, articles that might also be possible candidates for deletion. Thomas.W   talk to me  18:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am the coordinator of the firearms project and was improving articles about muzzle devices including sound suppressors, flash suppressors and their manufacturers. My goal is to improve the firearms resources of the encyclopedia. I do not think any of what I have written is promotional.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * redirect to Smith page per WP:PRODUCT Gaijin42 (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Appears to be sufficient coverage in third party publications to pass GNG. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep A notable device per publications in multiple RS. My very best wishes (talk) 02:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep . Well referenced and not  promotional. Meets GNG. (Disclaimer: I  came here via a discussion  at  AN/I) . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep... This item has significant historical value, current military use, and is not promotional. RoundPonda 11 July 2013 — RoundPonda (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete I don't see anything that makes this specific muzzle device special. I've seen them in action, it's a supressor .. whoop-de-doo.  It probably doesn't belong on Smith's page, more on generic page about silencers/flash suppression (✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 09:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, most other gun trinkets don't get coverage on Fox News. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know, I saw the link in the article. The average gun accessory doesn't get that kind of coverage. Even for the KAC sound suppressors, which are common issue on US special forces stuff, it's hard to find the kind of material that would satisfy WP:N. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. I think it passes the bar for notability. The article is written in a somewhat promotional manner though, with a lot of the material based on primary sources, press releases etc. Most of the book-type independent coverage are passing mentions, but then, I don't know how much one can expect this to be discussed; those refs do add up though. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2013 (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.