Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atomics (Dune)


 * 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 List of Dune terminology. Was unable to find any sources meeting WP:NOTABILITY myself, and none were presented here. Going to defer to the wisdom of editors below who say it is central to the plot, so the content should go somewhere. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Atomics (Dune)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of its series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 01:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as nn aspect of the book. No need for a rd--anyone searching for Atomics (Dune) would know to look at Dune for dab anyway. JJL (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * MergeI can't speak to sources (I'll look around) but the content is interesting, Herbert's ideas about the politics of atomics use and his idea of a "stone burner" being original. There is little justification for a separate article, but instead of deletion it should be sub-merved into Dune universe Kja er (talk) 04:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge - The article needs some real-world sources, but Herbert's concept is notable and hey, this is one of the most famous and respected sci-fi novels ever, with several major themes. Where exactly is the OR here, and since when is an incomplete article automatically subject to deletion rather than be tagged for improvement?  In the meantime, there are certainly other Dune-related articles in which some of this information can be folded as necessary. &mdash; TAnthonyTalk 05:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment no objection to a merge, e.g. to List of Dune terminology. JJL (talk) 12:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Having read all books in the series, I concur that this article just gathers plot details for an unremarkable plot device. VG &#x260E; 11:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This particular weaponry is central to the plot--it's the basis of the system by which the families preserve their independence, & is utilized several times in the action. This is major SF, and should be mentioned in the reviews. I agree there's no need for a redirect or a merge, it's suitable for a full article. The advice I can give VG is to read the series again, with the more careful attention to detail that one can obtain by looking up Wikipedia articles  like this, as a adjunct to the actual book. That's one of the roles of an encyclopedia.   DGG (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge – to List of Dune terminology. It's not such an important plot point that it requires its own article, and it asserts no notability in any case. It's fine to explain atomics in their relation to the greater Dune universe (which really, is their sole purpose, and it requires two lines), but anything past that is excessive. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 00:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable. No need to delete.--63.3.1.2 (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.