Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis automatic rifle

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. --BDD (talk) 19:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis automatic rifle

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

~~Not assertion of notability other than "this thing existed at one point". No real content of this article and no liklihood it will ever have any. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)~~ [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [1]. Unscintillating (talk) 02:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]

Keep A Google Books search shows significant coverage in books of the post World War I era. This was not an obscure prototype, as it appears the firearm went into production. We shouldn't delete stubs with useful content about notable topics. Instead, we expand them over time through normal editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Here's some coverage from Everybody's Magazine from back in the day. A legitimate encyclopedic topic of military history. Carrite (talk) 05:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

....And another passage noting the place of the Lewis AR in the history of armaments in WWI in David French's book Raising Churchill's Army (Oxford University Press). Carrite (talk) 05:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage in Farrow's Dictionary of Military Terms. Carrite (talk) 05:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, your references are to the World War I Lewis gun. Has somebody got some evidence that this weapon actually existed? Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Carrite. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant coverage in multiple non-primary reliable sources and thus is notable as defined by WP:GNG. Article needs improvement but deletion is not a replacement for article improvement.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above comments. I agree with RCLC that it needs work, but there's enough information out there to make that possible. Intothat darkness 17:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lewis gun. IF people actually spend time reading the references provided by Carrite (as Hawkeye7 asked), you see that's it's just a synonym for that. There's no evidence even a prototype of this supposed follow-up existed. Not in those references anyway. The images in the article are (1) a 3D computer model from someone's imagination. (2) a Chatellerault FM Mle 1924 [sans Mod. 29] (incorrectly?) called "«Lewis» mle 1924" in some German book. Note that Lewis is in quotes in that book, suggesting it was a misnomer given by the Germans or the French to the FM 24 gun. At best a disambiguation should replace the current contents. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 06:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lewis gun. Not convinced that this weapon ever existed. Everything points to Lewis gun. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close, speedy keep: The nominator was blocked as of 06:52, 21 June 2013 for sock puppetry per a discussion "Disruptive creation of groundless AFDs, probable sockpuppetry". Crtew (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I know, but while some of his nominations were silly, others had some logic. This one is of the latter kind. Do you have anything to say about the article? 86.121.18.17 (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If someone's got access to the book by Easterly mentioned in the last post of this thread, it might have some information. It looks as if the weapon might have existed in prototype form (or at least be related to the 1922 patent diagram). Clearly some older stuff does refer to the Lewis gun as an "automatic rifle," but this might be a different weapon. Possibly add to the Lewis article as a "further development"? Intothatdarkness 16:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If you find a source, add it. Patents alone don't justify an article because they are WP:PRIMARY sources. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.