Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangerter 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) 17:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bangerter machine gun

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

Another article based entirely on a patent, with the usual misrepresentation from this group of accounts. The patent is a WP:PRIMARY source as far as WP:GNG is concerned. It's not even been read properly, because the number of barrels proposed there was 15 not 12. As usual for patents, the caliber of the ammo is not given therein (because this would limit patent applicability for what are otherwise fairly trivial adaptations.) It should be noted Friedrich Bangerter was actually an US citizen, so the caliber of this would be unlikely to be one used in Germany, as claimed in this article (7.92 mm Mauser). The group of sock-puppet accounts to which the creator of this one belongs has a history of inventing details like this from his own imagination, usually based on deducing the nationality of the inventor from his name, instead of even bothering to read the first paragraph of the patent, where the designer's citizenship and residence is stated. Now, searching for independent sources for this gun, there is a mention of a machine gun by Bangerter in a Machinery magazine from 1911, noting a demonstration given in Stapleton, Staten Island. But that was perhaps a different gun, for this one was patented much later (patent applied for in 1918, granted 1922). I don't know if that alone justifies a Wikipedia article, but it should probably be for a different gun. This stub needs WP:TNT in the best of circumstances. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:08, 7 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) 22:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found this newspaper clipping from 1910, which is hardly believable (1 million rounds per minute rate of fire) for some Bangerter design. It seems reliable sources are rather difficult to find for anything related to him. I should also note that M1922 Bangerter machine gun was already deleted, and it appears it was substantially the same article [1], perhaps a bit less wrong. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For reasons stated above. It seems as if someone found some obscure firearms patent book somewhere and uploaded every gun patent in it to Wikipedia. --RAF910 (talk) 22:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. It is clear that Mr Bangerter was active in making claims to have invented weapons with remarkable qualities. I have found another article in the NY Times; though I cannot access it as it is subscription only, it is clear from the headline that the claim was that it could fire 1 million rounds an hour (not a minute this time) without using powder at a cost of less than $20. I hazard a guess that it may have been using compressed air as a a propellant. Intriguingly, he is described as Swiss (presumably he became a US citizen later). The patent registries are littered with wild and wonderful proposals that were never practicable (the more eccentric the idea, the less likely that anyone else would have come up with it). We need evidence that any of these things actually worked as claimed. A single prototype could be notable in certain circumstances but we are nowhere near that at present. --AJHingston (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All articles from 1910 are apparently from the same source: the demo in Stapleton Staten Island. The NYT article reports that "The reporters saw the gun shoot, but were not permitted to see that part of the gun out of which the little steel bullets came with such rapidity." The description in the article does not match the patent: the bullets were poured into the gun from a bucket, and "the gun "uses neither powder nor compressed air and ... fires bullets that do not require shells". 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 20:48, 8 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.