PGP (paintball marker): 122.60.233.84 ( talk ) 12:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC) — 122.60.233.84 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] Very little information exists on the PGP or Sheridan in general .  That isn't a reason to keep this article, in fact it's evidence that it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines .  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 13:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , Firearms ,  and Technology .  Ajf773 ( talk ) Delete fails WP:GNG .  Glad people are clearing up all this non-notable paintball fandom, as this is an encylopedia, not a Fandom site.  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 13:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The PGP essentially invented the entire concept of pump-class / stock-class paintball play, being the first mass-produced pump paintball marker.  You cannot tell the history of the sport without mentioning this marker.  (The history of pump is a notable omission from the Paintball article too.)  People are still playing pump tournaments and companies are still producing pump markers today.  GameGod ( talk ) 05:19, 19 June 2023 (UTC) — GameGod ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] If your claim is correct, then you should be able to demostrate this passes WP:GNG by means of reliable secondary sources.  Ajf773 ( talk ) 10:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WARPIG has some information on the PGP and Sheridan’s valve design influencing later paintball marker designs https://www.warpig.com/paintball/technical/valvehist.shtml 174.95.38.62 ( talk ) 14:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC) — 174.95.38.62 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] WARPIG has all the hallmarks of a fansite.  I do not consider this to be a reliable independent secondary source.  Ajf773 ( talk ) 10:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please see the "World And Regional Paintball Information Guide" homepage at http://www.warpig.com/ .  It would appear to be self-published - "Copyright © 1992-2019 Corinthian Media Services"... "As such, Corinthian Media Services makes no claims to the trustworthiness or reliability of said information."  The "Corinthian Media Services" homepage is at http://www.mediaconspiracy.com/ - that domain name would appear to me not to inspire confidence in its reliability and impartiality.  -- Shirt58 ( talk ) 🦘 09:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The PGP was the 3rd paintball gun ever produced.  Deleting it would be like deleting the Buick Model B because it wasn't a Ford Model T. It is also the model every stacked tube pump and Autococker is based on.  History https://www.vintagerex.com/cgi-bin/index.cgi? action=viewmarker&marker=PGP&man=PMI%20-%20Sheridan https://paintballhistory.com/pioneering-the-sport-of-paintball-the-history-of-pmi-with-jeff-perlmutter/ https://www.paintballaward.com/history-paintball/ https://paintballhistory.com/sheridan/ https://baccipaintball.com/guns/gun-manufacturers/sheridan.html https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=l4rJqyygOB4 PGPs and variants are still being made by artisan airsmiths.  Most of these are from the old-school paintball forum MCarterBrown.com I don't believe the manufacturers bother with a website because they only sell them here.  https://paintballhistory.com/walz/ https://www.mcarterbrown.com/forum/paintball-news-aa/the-armory/sheridan/229-custom-sheridan-picture-thread https://www.mcarterbrown.com/forum/custom/custom-projects-custom-questions/383748-diy-sheridan https://www.mcarterbrown.com/forum/paintball-news-aa/the-armory/sheridan/360367-riots-pirate https://www.mcarterbrown.com/forum/paintball-news-aa/the-armory/sheridan/57556-myrkul-s-pgp-makeover-freak-style VTsolar ( talk ) 14:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC) — VTsolar ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] You cannot possible make any similarities between a pioneering automobile and a piece of equipment in a fringe sport.  Looking at those sources there is a considerable amount of user-generated content there.  Also the editor VTsolar has not made any edits prior to this one.  Ajf773 ( talk ) 10:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  09:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete There just isn't enough reference in what we consider RS to keep this (or most other articles on the subject).  I've also been tagged (see below as being biased), but in matter of fact or to be correct, I'm pro-paintball.  That said, I hang up my paintball hat and put on my editor's hat when in AfD.  We have to be objective here.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you please check the two quotes I pulled from "The Complete Guide to Paintball" below?  If we were to work those into the article and add it as a reference, would that establish enough notability to justify keeping the page?  GameGod ( talk ) 03:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment looks like there's been some WP:CANVASSING on Reddit: [28] .  Probably explains why we have one new account and 2 IP users with 0 other edits on Wikipedia except on this and the other article mentioned on that thread.  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 10:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, and they tagged me as biased against the article on a talk page, even though I've played paintball and have two Spyder markers with extra barrels, gear and many welts to prove it.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong delete Finding zero evidence of meeting WP:GNG , WP:NPRODUCT , or any chance this article could be expanded to encompassing all of Sheridan due to total lack of WP:NCORP .  IceBergYYC ( talk ) 08:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep Unfortunately, apparently, for people interested in paintball information, since paintball's media has declined since the sport's heyday passed in the early 2000s, reliable sources are mostly out of print and not available as easily found and linked web references.  But make no mistake, there is a LOT of information out there and a lot of reliable source media offline that explains the importance and relevance of iconic products like the PGP and the history of how a 100-year-old company came to create products for this brand new sport in the 1980s, which is and has been played by millions of people around the world.  I have started making some hopefully substantive edits and references so maybe folks can call off the apparent crusade against paintball history articles.  They may be in poor shape but they absolutely can be salvaged and are certainly knowledge worth preserving.  KRS Quan ( talk ) 13:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC) — KRS Quan ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] You can quote paper magazines, so long as you have the article title, page and issue/month date.  We can easily enough locate them if needed.  Problem is we don't have any information available to us.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] you may have missed the additions with print media citations that have been added.  Really just the tip of the iceberg as the vast majority of what would be considered reliable source record and journalism is offline.  KRS Quan ( talk ) 00:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Unable to find a full scan of the article in the December 1990 issue cited, but if its anything like the November 1992 article, I'd say its really not applicable for building any sort of notability.  The text of the November '92 article [29] doesn't even mention the PGP, there is simply a captioned picture of the gun, while the article is 50% advertisement for a different brand of guns.  This feels like a desperate attempt at WP:SYNTH and trying to find articles to fit your already chosen narrative, rather than writing articles based on existing sources, which would be nearly impossible to do based on the lack of WP:VERIFIABLE sources.  IceBergYYC ( talk ) 02:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is NO advertisement in that article, and it's honestly dangerous that you feel qualified to judge an article based on that very disingenuous interpretation, speaking of desperate.  It's not a difficult article to read through and understand.  It clearly establishes that the Sheridan marker in question was a well-known exemplar of the stock class style.  And your challenge to the 1990 article is simply bad faith.  KRS Quan ( talk ) 09:38, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Have you... read the article?  Nowhere in the text of the article does it say anything meaningful about the PGP.  There is a single captioned image of the PGP (albeit under a different name), and the marker is never mentioned again.  50% of the article is promotional material for a "Those Guys (And that Gal) Mercenary Service".  And once again, nothing about that article demonstrates any real notability of the PGP as a standalone product.  As I said in a later reply further down this thread, I think with the information uncovered, there may be enough information for a page on Stock Class markers as a whole, but certainly this particular product does not meet any of Wikipedias many notability criteria.  IceBergYYC ( talk ) 15:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The reference supports the statement, literally.  It doesn't matter how long it is or how many photos there are.  Nor does it matter if you falsely claim it is an advertisement when it isn't ... "Service" doesn't mean a business, it's a team.  And again there are many more references, but I'm not going to waste my time jumping like a monkey if this is how you treat legitimate citations.  This is all very bad faith.  Sad.  KRS Quan ( talk ) 09:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In reference to "It doesn't matter how long it is or how many photos there are."  Please see WP:SIGCOV , simply untrue.  As for my previous statement, the article still reads as promotional in nature, and regardless, the point of my statement is that most of the article is talking about something (or in this case someone) else.  A passing mention of something does not display notability.  IceBergYYC ( talk ) 19:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And the bad faith and disingenuousness continues.  Each and every reference is NOT required to prove the notability of the topic of the article.  That's simply ludicrous.  The fact that you continue to assert that the content of one reference, which you continue to mischaracterize, PROVES lack of notability is absolute hogwash.  KRS Quan ( talk ) 11:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The reality is, one of the two references you've declared as making the article meet notability requirememts is useless for actually demonstrating WP:GNG or WP:NPRODUCT .  So even if we assume the other article is absolutely perfect, one good article in one publication absolutely does not demonstrate notability.  Unfortunately for all of us, just because someone disagrees with us doesn't mean they're acting in bad faith.  IceBergYYC ( talk ) 05:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I've been looking for reliable sources for the last few nights with limited success.  I checked the "Official Survival Game Manual" book by Lionel Atwill and, unfortunately, it only mentions the Nel-Spot 007, not the Sheridan PGP.  (The book was too early.)  I also checked patents and Action Pursuit Games, with no luck.  There could be references in other paintball magazines , which I did not check.  However, there is a quote on page 117 of the book, "The Complete Guide to Paintball" by Jerry Braun (1999 edition), which states "Back in 1981 and 1982, when this great game was just getting started, there were really only two gun choices: the side-cocking Nelspot, remembered by its users for the calluses it left on their fingers, and the rear-cocking Sheridan PGP".  The book then goes on to explain how the pump reduced frustration and combined with the introduction of the gravity feed, lead to a "paintball technological revolution".  There's a couple editions of book available on the Internet Archive here .  I think this source could be considered reliable because the book is by an established publisher, it's not a vendor publication, it's not trying to sell you the marker, etc.  Thoughts?  GameGod ( talk ) 02:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To add more to that, in a chapter called "The Evolution of the Marker", the 2007 edition of the same book writes on page 60, "Paintball markers evolved from two basic designs. The "Nelson" design, which is the Nelspot 007 pistol, and the Sheridan design, seen in the PGP pistol" Both are good designs, and both spawned a lot of clones. ". I think this puts the Sheridan PGP at the same level of importance as the Nelspot and makes it notable because it explains that it is from the design of these two markers that all other markers came from. GameGod ( talk ) 03:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I still think from the sources described, we're not looking at enough WP:VERIFIABLE information to write a meaningful article. Nobody is saying the things in the article arent true, but wikipedia's bar is set higher than "it's true" everything written in an article has to be verifiable.  Not every sentence needs a citation, but a citation must feasibly exist for any assertation, and based on how the search is going, I'm not confident enough information exists to warrant a standalone article for this paintball marker.  I think from the information uncovered so far, and what I can find myself, I would support the creation of a new article on Stock Class markers as a whole, which could feasibly include a section on this marker, but this marker still doesn't pass the bar of WP:NPRODUCT to be notable on its own.  IceBergYYC ( talk ) 03:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : This is more suitable for a fandom wiki Very Average Editor ( talk ) 13:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE .  ✗ plicit 12:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Per others.  DarkHorseMayhem ( talk ) 00:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Just plain fails the GNG, no matter the blather from sock/meatpuppets to the contrary.   If they truly believe this information needs preservation, they are free to create PaintballPedia or another such fansite, and fill it with such minutiae to their liking.  Ravenswing 21:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , since there is very clear consensus and reason to delete this (ignoring the canvassing).  Clearly fails GNG.  @ 122.60.233.84 , your argument completely contradicts your vote, as stated by @ Joseph2302 .  🌶️ Jala peño 🌶️ Don't click this link !  12:24, 27 June 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete