Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lazzeroni rifle

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 merge to Lazzeroni. Sandstein 10:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lazzeroni rifle

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

)

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

NN product, fails the GNG going away. Notability tagged for over a decade, and no reliable sources in over thirteen years. Article is blatantly promotional. No significant coverage in reliable sources found, although I did find a firearms forum with comments such as "Who buys these things? I seriously wonder how they can move enough guns to stay in business from year to year," "I've never even seen a Lazzeroni in real life or know anybody who's ever used one," and "According to the ATF manufacturing report, Lazzeroni Inc manufactured and registered only 27 rifles in 2010." Ravenswing 01:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page, for which the same SPA created both:

)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 01:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 01:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete the rifle [1] is an in-depth look at the Lazzeroni products, although I'm unfamiliar with the source, and there's nothing to be found about guns.com in the
reliable sources noticeboard archives. [2] Reviewed in Field and Stream, which is a reliable publication (and yes, it appears to be a staff review). [3] is a decently reliable source imo, so long as the content does not bear on the NRA, it's publisher. However, the content in that article is about Lazzeroni himself, not the rifles. On the whole, the guns.com piece is of unknown reliability and the Field and Stream piece is brief, so I'm going to say weak delete. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

The reliable sources noticeboard now has info on guns.com. Not a reliable source. It is just a online website that connects gun buyers with licensed gun dealers. Assume that anything you see on guns.com is an ad, even if it looks like an article. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know. I come from a family of sportsmen, but I freely concede that knowing which firearms publications are reliable or not is not my long suit, and I'm happy to listen to editors with more expertise on the subject. Ravenswing 06:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the cartridge. For the cartridge - [4] is an in-depth piece mentioning the cartridges, but I'm unfamiliar with the source and there's nothing on the reliable source noticeboard about it. A Google search seems to indicate this isn't a particularly major publication, so I'll default to not notability-building. [5] presents a paragraph about Lazzeroni cartridges, and it's a reliable source. [6] is a Field and Stream piece that talks about the cartridge to some extent, and even about the rifles some. [7] is a namecheck, trivial mention. It looks like the 10th edition of Cartridges of the World contains info on the cartridge, based on the citation (AGF, as I can't access the source). Between the war memorial site, Field and Stream, and Cartridges of the World, I think the cartridge just barely scrapes by notability. If rifleshootermag turns out to be reliable (not holding my breath), I'm say this is a strong keep. @Ravenswing: - Would you consider splitting the discussion, since these two articles seem to have slightly different merits?Hog Farm _Bacon 05:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A major problem with both is simple: there just isn't enough info out there to be able to write a decent non-stub about them. I agree with you that Field & Stream is a reliable source, and that's a fairly comprehensive piece, but the Imperial War Museum's something of a casual mention; we don't have separate articles on every one of the hundreds of thousands of items in large museum collections. Cartridges of the World (which I ganked off of Scribd) is a similar one-paragraph listing. Ravenswing 06:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both into Lazzeroni. Cartridges of the World gives both a short summary of the company and covers all of the cartridges, whilst other sources also exist establishing notability [8][9][10]. Cavalryman (talk) 09:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Gah, I missed that target: looked for an article on John Lazzeroni and failed. Merge and redirect's an obvious and useful solution, thank you. Ravenswing 16:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Merging them all into one is acceptable to me, too. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:23, 18 July 2020 (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.