Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blaster (Star Wars)


 * 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   keep. postdlf (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Blaster (Star Wars)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable fictional item. Independent reliable sources do not establish that blasters within the Star Wars franchise are notable separate from the franchise itself. Fails WP:GNG, WP:FICT and WP:OR. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 19.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 17:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Selective merge and redirect, which is what I errantly did when I mistook the AfD notice as a WP:PROD. I'm going to ask the nom. to withdraw this AfD to see if merge/redirect will stick, which I suspect it will. [Caveat: the target itself isn't the strongest List of..., either.] --EEMIV (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's reasonable to allow the AFD to run its course and see what consensus emerges. My concern with a merge is that there is no information in this article that's independently reliably sourced. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 17:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Two of the four sources are to third-party works. Insufficient to established WP:GNG, but sufficient to provide passing coverage that clears the WP:WAF bar in a List of... or some other article covering the films' production. --EEMIV (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I would say that only one is really independent, since the game cited would have been produced under franchise. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to the prop blog and the print source, but...whatever. --EEMIV (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Erik's barrage of quickie edits give me pause to cull the stand-alone article. Seems there is some specific, nitpicky third-party commentary -- plus, I realize these props have been merchandised out the wazoo, and that seems a decent GNG threshold. --EEMIV (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep as a notable topic. I found this quickly, and the book The Science of Star Wars covers blasters. The book Myth, Media, and Culture in Star Wars mentions the color-coding choices of blaster fire. However, the current article content needs to be purged as fancruft. We can take a more creative and real-world approach to this topic and leave the fancruft to Wookieepedia. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 15:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This mentions where the sound effect of blasters comes from. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 15:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Another. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 16:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge to List of Star Wars weapons. The sources don't really shout out as being signification enough to support an article on this alone. I would say the the overall discussion of the weapons in the series could merit a detailed article, so anything for this could reasonably fit there and help with that until it proves that it needs to be split out for size issues. TTN (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Merge to List of Star Wars weapons. This may end up gathering enough sources to pass the GNG all by itself, but I don't think that a separate article is entirely necessary.LM2000 (talk) 09:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge (with List of Star Wars weapons - preferred) or (Weak) Delete. This isn't the worst page to ever appear on Wikipedia, and it was probably uploaded for genuine reasons.  But it doesn't quite meet the criteria of WP:GNG.  If it comes down to a tally of votes, count as only a half-vote for delete, if it is not merged.Squareanimal (talk) 10:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep If there were any doubt on the standalone notability of this article at the time of nomination, I think they are well gone now. Not only did the recent expansion showed that diverse sources provide a sizable amount of "real world" information on Star Wars blasters, but since December 2, numerous news articles mention the upcoming sale of Han Solo's blaster (e.g., ). This shows the real world significance of this fictional element, and provides even more room for expansion. Therefore, this subject is notable for a standalone article, and whether it should be merge or not is up for editorial discretion (i.e. discussed on the talk page), it cannot be AFD-mandated in these circumstances. Cenarium (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've incorporated The Guardian into the article. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 18:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * D'oh, I didn't realize you already added a section. My bad! Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 18:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I suspect the auction news/attention has more to do with Han Solo's notability more than the blaster prop/device's. Still, there is some meaningful content that is worth retaining somewhere, and probably best to close this discussion and migrate it all to the article talk page to ascertain best direction from there. --EEMIV (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, WP:GNG says about notability, "Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Even if it is because of Han Solo, The Guardian gave good behind-the-scenes information about the blaster in the films. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 22:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 00:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems from other comments that it is now WP:GNG which means it is also now WP:FICT. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2013 (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.