Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ITM Model 3

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. Sandstein 19:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ITM Model 3

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

Non-notable firearm; search found nothing. Only source is blog. Created by User:Ctway sock. ansh 666 05:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 06:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the other weapons by the same company, whose only sources are patents (which don't establish notability):

ansh 666 06:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines. Also, enough is enough. I recommend that every page created by User:Ctway and socks be automatically deleted. It would save us the trouble of doing it one by one.--RAF910 (talk) 06:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 07:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 07:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Should we considering merging the ITM firearm related articles into a single "ITM Tool and Die" article, since the company was apparently still extant back in 2009? By the way, the deletion page links for the ITM Model 4 & ITM Model 5 articles are pointing to this page for some reason (ignore this if deliberate). Ceannlann gorm (talk) 18:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it's deliberate, I bundled the nomination per WP:MULTIAFD. And yes, if there is enough in terms of WP:RS for the company, information can be merged there - but I'm not seeing it. ansh 666 01:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Highly obscure, probably all just prototypes. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2016 (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.