Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hawk MM-1

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Daask (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hawk MM-1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The only source is an apparent self-published source. I've been unable to find anything else about the weapon online that's not a.copy of or based on this source, including mirrors of Wikipedia. This is probably a hoax or at least a fictional weapon possibly used in a movie, though the only source for that is the unreliable Internet Movie Firearms Database (IMFDB). BilCat (talk) 19:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep I can understand Bill's point here. But these are a class of weapon that, by their rarity, have been prominent in films for forty years since the Dogs of War. As such, I think there is encyclopedic value in stating clearly that they have been used in films, they are based on a real concept for a weapon (the Manville gun) and that anything else is supposition (i.e. refuting what most of the internet claims).

I can see a merge and redirect to Manville gun as being the best way to structure this. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming reliable sources can be found for movie use, I'd support a merge. - BilCat (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, not my area of expertise but it is mentioned in these two sources that appear reliable: The New Encyclopedia of Handguns by Chris Chant and Counter-Terrorism Equipment by Ian V. Hogg & Ray Hutchins - Dumelow (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned in Jane's Infantry Weapons 1991-92 and was said to have been in service with special forces in the USA as well as in Africa and Central America. There is also an advert for it from Hawk engineering Inc in Jane's Defence Weekly of 1998. I am now convinced it is a real weapon so am happy to add my support to keep - Dumelow (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - also not my area of expertise, but appears to be a real weapon based on the sources from Dumelow. - Scarpy (talk) 22:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I just listed a bunch of cites on the talk page that took me all of 2 minutes to find with Google. There is also plenty of other info out there that I linked as well. (Perhaps not RS refs, but backs up the notability of this item.). - ^theWOLFchild 23:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is, pretty much all of the sources out there are highly circular, self-referencing and dubious. It's hard to find solid ones underlying all this. Dumelow's books are a good start. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:18, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Actual weapon. Beyond appearances in film (which would tend to lend to notability), sources above by Dumelow are convincing (even via snippet view).Icewhiz (talk) 11:56, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Stunningly poorly sourced as this is it is a real and notable thing, unless there is another page about it of course.Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets WP:GNG with Janes, Hogg, and Chant as refs, plus addition of use in a number of films and novels can be used to expand article. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agree that article is crap, but subject passes WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:06, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It appears real, so no reason to delete despite weak article. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've seen this before. However, the article is way too shitty. —AE (talk • contributions) 13:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but possibly WP:TNT. Article is notable, but I agree with above comment that the content is crappy. Redditaddict69 17:38, 29 August 2018 (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.