Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USFA Custer Battlefield 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 redirect to Colt Single Action Army. MBisanz ^talk 06:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

USFA Custer Battlefield Gun

There are several articles on handguns manufactured by the U.S. Fire Arms Manufacturing Company; none of which are (IMHO) notable and all of which are variants of the Colt Single Action Army. The articles themselves appear to be advertising or fancruft, and as such I feel they are candidates for deletion.

The following articles also fall under the scope of this nomination:

Commander Zulu (talk) 04:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that these are probably not individually notable, and I'd support deletion, but a preferable option might be to merge these (and possibly other articles) into an article on Colt reproductions. It seems that there are several companies whose entire business consists of manufacturing such Colt reproductions (Colt Single Action Army reproductions perhaps?), and so collectively the topic might be notable. cmadler (talk) 12:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Cmadler. These guns are not notable individually, but I think they qualify as a group. Grandmartin11 (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merging is an excellent suggestion. Having all the articles in one location would be more useful for readers.--E8 (talk) 06:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've got no problem with a merge to a Colt Single Action Army reproductions article; I'm just not sure if there are Wiki articles on many of the repros besides the USFA ones to actually put in the article. Commander Zulu (talk) 07:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It would seem the question should be "Are there other reproductions?" not "Are there articles on other reproductions?". The lack of an article is a poor indication of the lack of a product, especially considering you just proposed these products' articles for deletion. – 74 00:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, there are plenty of reproductions out there; but I'm not really sure any of them are notable enough for their own articles, or even an article devoted to reproductions. The M1911 pistol article only has a couple of sentences acknowledging that there are "clone" pistols in existence, so I'm not sure if that sets a precedent on the issue or not. I don't mind what we do with the USFA gun articles as long as they don't remain in their current form, IMHO. Commander Zulu (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as specified by cmadler. – 74 00:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no more encyclopedic value in this than there is in "collectable Elvis plate sets". --Nukes4Tots (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can see them being briefly mentioned in the article for the company (USAA) as "Models Produced". I can also see a brief mention in a list in a "Replicas" section of Colt Single Action Army, but I see no reason to get into any detail on the individual models. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article almost reads like a sales brochure and seriously lacks notability. A single sentence in the USAA article should be enough. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 00:41, 7 March 2009 (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.