Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnston machine gun

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Johnston machine gun[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This article is rife with problems, starting with the usual one that patents are WP:PRIMARY sources for WP:GNG purposes. The patent is mentioned in a long list of machine gun patents in a US gov work (by Chinn), but that does not add much notability. I've not seen any detailed discussion of this design in Chinn. Furthermore there are some misinterpretations in this article, no doubt caused by the lack of careful reading of the primary source. This "mega-gatling" design is unusual because it was intended to fire from two diametrically opposed barrels simultaneously, and even had a built-in cooling fan. However, the wiki article wrongly states that "it had no chambers" contra to the "cartridge receiving chambers" discussed on line 76 and other places in the patent. The chambers themselves were unusual as they were temporarily created on the opposite sides of the centrally rotating drum. The two counter-rotating drums on each side of that were supposed to create the chambers, but these would have been rather leaky because of their design—cylinders touching each other radially do not provide a good seal. I'm not surprised this didn't get any traction. Also, this is a design by the obscure JAMES S. JOHNSTON (no relation to Melvin Johnson), and he is probably not the bishop either so a merge would not be appropriate. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC) Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Just another article based on a patent. There is no information anywhere that this gun ever existed. I did find a Johnston Model D1918 which appears to be a Lewis Gun type LMG. However, it does not even come close to matching the description of the gun in the article.--RAF910 (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to M1941 Johnson machine gun as a plausible misspelling. This one as it stands fails WP:GNG. Ansh666 01:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've got nothing on this one.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:20, 31 July 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.