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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

.700 Hubel Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

I have been doing quite a bit if research and have come to some conclusions.

This cartridge article is being set up to provide legitimacy by Ed Hubel. It is my belief that Ed Hubel and Hubel458 are one and the same person. The 700 Hubel is a project undertaken by Ed. I am afraid that this cartridge article is to become a self-promontory site for Ed Hubel and his project and his future projects. For a lack of good advertising site or other reasons such as the lack of interest, Ed seems to believe that the Wiki is the bus to hitch a ride on to fame as a sort of maven cartridge developer. This is not what the Wiki is supposed to be. This sort of action undermines the credibility of the firearms project.

I have made a telephone call, I do not believe the that Ed Hubel is a credible or creditable source of information regarding the cartridge. Self-proclaimed claims regarding cartridge capability is being given credibility which was lacking elsewhere by this article. It was Ed Hubel who requested this article, and as a response, it was Ed Hubel who wrote this article.

This article should be killed and killed now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeusImperator (talk • contribs) 8 September 2010

Note: the following comment was copied and pasted from a second AfD discussion created on this same article by a user who was likely unaware of this AfD. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable - unable to find information anywhere outside of blogs. Probably it's just too early - we should wait until it becomes notable. We can't seem to substantiate any reliable info without WP:OR issues. I made a good-faith effort to assist the new editor in creating an article properly, but we have been unable to find sources to establish notability and indeed have found that some of the sources given have been proven not to contain the info claimed. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my comments above. And thanks to Kuyabribri for the assist in cleanup up the nomination mess. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment So it's likely a COI. Do the listed references, most of which appear to be offline, actually cover the ammunition in question here? I've certainly never heard of it, but I'm not a hunter--especially not of anything that would need a .700! COI is bad, but it can be cleaned up. Failing to have reliable source coverage is an essentially uncorrectable issue. Jclemens (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Re: Sources Many of the sources listed are not being used to establish notability, but rather to support some statement not solely related to the cartridge in question. Only 3 of the sources given are alleged to mention the cartridge directly -

• Weighman, Zac (November–December 2009). "Hubel Cartridges". The International Ammunition Journal. 470: 10–11. - unable to verify.
• Bussard, Michael (2008). Ammo Encyclopedia. Blue Book Publications. p. 567 of 791. ISBN 978-1886768796. failed verification - DeusImperator bought the book and the ref wasn't in it.
• Templar, Stephen W (2008). Rexgun. Morgan Templar. p. 91 of 106. ISBN 978-0615224138. is a fluff "what if?" book that has trivial mention.

so I don't think we have notability established. The only sources I can find don't pass WP:RS. And we do have a definite WP:COI issue with the editor who is the cartridge creator and is having some troubles understanding how wikipedia works. He's made some progress but I don't think this article meets muster. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete but move the article to users pages as AliveFreeHappy has indicated elsewhere. I do not believe that Mr. Hubel knows how to move the page. I have provided some reasoning as to why it should be removed for the moment on the articles talk pages in brief both should be deleted for the following reasons:

1) Conflict of Interest 2) Speculative information 3) No reliable information in print or other media available on the subject 4) Article set up for the purpose of drawing attention to product

• The Ammo Encyclopedia has no information regarding the Hubel cartridges it merely lists the cartridge in a list among many others. It is not enven in the index of cartridges. I had indicated earlier to (talk) that it did not exist in that book (I had been going through the index of all entries).
• The TRex book is end to end speculative about shot placement on dinosaurs. So if if if there were dinosaurs somewhere you might use a Hubel to shoot it in such and such a place. That is the extent of the information in the book. Personally, listing that book is too funny and a very quick way to loosing credibility. It is supposed to be a funny what if book in the end, and I believe that was what the author was aiming for anyway.
• The IAJ is the only authoritative source. However that too fails to provide information. All that it provides is that Mr. Hubel was designer the cartridge. It is a cartridge collector's bi-monthly journal.

DeusImperator (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - having read through the efforts of DeusImperator and AliveFreeHappy at the talk page, and noted that the included refs do not cite facts about the cartridge, I am happy that this particular piece of ammunition isn't notable. Bigger digger (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2010 (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.