Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamilton mod. 1901

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton mod. 1901

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

Non-notable firearm; search in English found no reliable sources. A Swedish-speaker may be able to help. Created by a User:Ctway sock (whose talk page must be flooded by deletion notices by now...). ansh 666 08:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines.--RAF910 (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is a complete mess, possibly mixes two guns (but I'm not sure) and doesn't provide any evidence of notability. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ Delete Since this was a copy of Bergmann 1896, I added a short mention of this there. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it *isn't* a copy, although the article claims it is. I dug some more, and found the source of the claim on a Swedish discussion forum, it's likely a misunderstandning (perhaps because Google translate). --OpenFuture (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the help. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2016 (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.