Talk:Volley gun

Untitled

We should include the older volley guns like those developed by the Europeans in the 16th century. AllStarZ 01:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge in proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge in Brightman anti aircraft machine gun, but rather to nominate it for deletion

---

There is agreement elsewhere that Brightman anti aircraft machine gun doesn't fit the notability criteria for an independent page, so a merge or deletion seems appropriate. There is a patent describing the gun and confirming its registration by Brightman in Hawaii. Given that it is described as a volley gun, and the patent matches that desciption, I propose a merge in here (a US patent being an acceptable form of reference). Incoming text should be modified to indicate that the existence of the patent, but perhaps not the gun itself; unless we can find more evidence of its use. Perhaps Spinningspark might have a view too? Klbrain (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

As I stated here when I reverted this merge, there does not seem to be anything about this gun other than the patent. There is no indication that it was put into service, or even that protoptypes were ever built. There is no discussion of the gun anywhere I can find and hence it has no notability. The very most that could be said in the article is that the patent exists. But many patents exist and they are not all worth mentioning.

I don't fully agree with your statement that patents are an acceptable reference. There is a consensus that patents are not generally to be considered reliable sources on matters of fact. All sorts of claims are made in patents, not all of them are correct by any means and Wikipedia has no means of assessing them. See WP:PATENTS. If the patent was for an important new type of volley gun, or led to the development of some other notable gun, or was of some historic importance, or had been discussed in other sources, or it could be showm that Brightman was a recognised published expert in the field—if any of those things pertained we could mention it. But they don't, all we have is a patent by Brightman that everyone else ignored. That is a strong case for deleting the page, not for merging it here. SpinningSpark 17:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I should add that just a cursory search finds dozens of similar patents, eg [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. There is nothing particularly special about this one. SpinningSpark 17:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the WP:PATENTS link: very interesting and something I should have known. I've booked a visit to my local library and will see if I can find anything (although accept that it may be a wild goose chase). Klbrain (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Nothing has come of a trip to my local UK legal deposit library; unless anyone else has references showing use of Brightman anti aircraft machine gun perhaps we should switch the merge proposal to a nominate for deletion on the grounds of notability (to which Spinningspark as already quite rightly alluded)? Klbrain (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I would support deletion, along with Category:Weapons of Hawaii of which this is the only memeber. @Nuytrbnuytrb: as article and category creator, do you have anything to add? SpinningSpark 13:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I've initiated the AfD for the article; perhaps the category can await the outcome of the page discussion. Klbrain (talk) 11:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.