Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SM-9

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 redirect to Sten#Cellini_Dunn_SM-9. Consensus was to redirect (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SM-9

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

Non-notable firearm variant; redirect to Sten#Cellini_Dunn_SM-9 (which incidentally is also unsourced) was undone by an IP. Only in-article sources are images; can't find anything else remotely reliable. ansh 666 04:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 04:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 04:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 04:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced original research. No value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as ~~copyright vio~~ direct copy of a patent application. Earwig comparison Mortee (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Sten#Cellini_Dunn_SM-9 I removed the two sections that were copied and there's a bit of the article left. I'm not certain it's strictly a copyvio because I don't know the copyright status of patents, but it's an unsourced copy anyway and shouldn't be there. What's left of the article doesn't build on Sten#Cellini_Dunn_SM-9 so redirecting there seems right. Mortee (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Sten#Cellini_Dunn_SM-9 I went ahead and made the change.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't redirect a page while the AfD is still ongoing. Wait for the closing admin to do the redirect. I've reverted the redirect to wait for the closing admin. Natg 19 (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2017 (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.