Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mekanika Uirapuru

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. The article is completely unreferenced, which makes me give less weight to the views asserting that relevant sources exist. Sandstein 09:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mekanika Uirapuru

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

~~Non-notable firearm; search in English found no reliable sources. A Portuguese-speaker may be able to help. Created by a User:Ctway sock. ansh 666 08:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

Per Ymblanter's sources (see this version in history), should now pass WP:GNG. ansh 666 23:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:29, 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) 17:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Improve (or Delete) There should be some reliable sources among those listed at General-purpose machine gun, but if no one is going to add any sources at all, the article should go. giso6150 (talk) 21:38, 13 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]

Weak keep, I added two books which apparently cover the subject (I do not have access to any of them). It is very difficult to distinguish between cruft and real sources, but when I tried to locate sources, it looks like the gun has got some attention. Not at all my field though.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment...Are you joking? You added two references to the article that you don't have and have never read? You can't do that. As a Wiki editor you must do you due diligence. You must at the very least know what the references say, so they can be properly cited. I have removed the references from the article.--RAF910 (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, I know what they say. But I am not going to edit-war for getting them back into the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The complete lack of a Reference List is never a good thing. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:11, 27 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.