Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Z-M Weapons


 * 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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Z-M Weapons

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Doesn't appear to pass WP:CORP Niteshift36 (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete per nom. Barely any coverage at all. Only a few of mentions in reliable book sources, all of which were in passing, and mainly in relation to the LR-300. The Armed Forces Journal has printed more extensive information about the company (i.e. ), but I'm unable to view it to see how detailed it gets, and I'm personally unfamiliar with the source. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 21:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The mentions appear to be just that, mentions. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment It is unsourced, so a WP:V deletion would be policy based.  However, WP:BEFORE IMO shows that the nomination as it stands is not sound policy.  The issues don't seem to yield to quick analysis by content non-experts.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that I didn't do any BEFORE or that I don't know what I'm looking at?Niteshift36 (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't said anything about you. Please see WP:AVOIDYOU.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I made the nomination. So if there is an issue with the nomination, it's my action. So what IS your issue with the nomination? And what issues do you feel require more expertise? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't say anything about your actions. WP:AVOIDYOU says to talk about the contribution, not the contributor.  I provided a policy basis for the nomination that was not in the nomination.  I've added the word "IMO" to my original comment, if that helps.  The point of my comment was to invite a deeper look at the issues involved here.  Do you want to develop with me a step-by-step detailed WP:BEFORE analysis?  Unscintillating (talk) 23:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "Lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources" is the notability guideline that I based the nomination on. I also pointed out that the company doesn't appear to pass the notability guidelines of CORP. I don't need any help with BEFORE and I'm not sure I see a need for a step-by-step guide. But thanks for the offer. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh wait, disregard. In looking at your other AfD "contributions", you seem to mention BEFORE everywhere, and leave other editors as confused as I am about what you actually mean. Disregard my request to clarify. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as my searches found nothing noticeably better either and the overall sight here seems to suggest there's simply not the needed solidity, which is not surprising considering it's local and nothing else to suggest it would be better known. I would've frankly PRODed. SwisterTwister   talk  20:05, 18 June 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.