Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doomsday devices in popular culture


 * 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   no consensus. There are some strong arguments that this material is inclusion worthy and that cannot be discarded, but the fact remains that many of the concerns about this article - primarily the lack of sourcing - are real. If the arguments for keeping are to prevail, it should be no big deal to get the article up to proper standards before it gets renominated; otherwise a subsequent closure may be less favorable for this article. Shereth 22:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Doomsday devices in popular culture

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

This is simply a trivial dumping ground for any doomsday device reference in popular culture. RobJ1981 (talk) 10:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or weak partial merge There are so many films with doomsday as its main theme (see Doomsday film), and even more with a doomsday device, that this list becomes filled with indiscriminate plot summaries (WP:NOT and WP:NOT). A thorough discussion of doomsday devices can take place at Doomsday device, which is still rather stubbish. – sgeureka t•c 12:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.   — Lenticel  ( talk ) 13:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for the same reasons as getting rid of the sonic weapon in pop culture thing. Just a huge collection of trivia whose relevant information is better contained in the appropriate articles. The list is incomplete (and will always be incomplete because of its relatively indiscriminate nature) not to mention many of the items are entirely non-notable Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I cannot see why a list should be deleted on the grounds that it is incomplete, any more than an article should be deleted on the same basis.--Father Goose (talk) 09:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete in favor of a category, my standard answer for this. If a page for the topic exists, put it in a category; no mess, no fuss. But, as it stands now, it's an unsourced list. Frank  |  talk  13:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'd be surprised if this weren't covered in some independent sci-fi compendium. FWIW, I do now remember reading about the rise of this device in film paralleling the development of the atomic bomb and the obvious connections. I will get the ref. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as Casliber says, there will be no problem finding sources. I am really puzzled by the argument that because there are many works that use the theme, the theme is not suitable for an article. I'd think it exactly the other way around. (Come to think of it, the argument is also used the other way around. Makes no sense either way. if there's enough to right an article, the use of any theme in notable works is a suitable encyclopedic subject.  If notable artists use it, they know what they're doing.) I am almost equally puzzled by the reappearance of some other arguments. Indiscriminate does not mean difficult to define, but covering everything in a conceivable group without consideration of importance--the consideration here is appearance in a notable work, which is defined as for any other list--having a Wikipedia article or being substantially covered in one. Next, that  a list has some inappropriate items -- that is a reason for editing not deletion--just as with any article. If we deleted every article that had something inappropriate in it, we'd be down to the FAs.  A list does not have to be complete--I wonder where anyone got the idea; Wikipedia is not complete in any topic, and never will be. (And if it were, people would then start saying indiscriminate again.)   And the favorite argument that it belongs in a category instead is opposed by the consensus that agreed on WP:list -- there is no reason not to have both--a category has the advantage of being built automatically, a list of being able to give some actual information about the use. It's not just the fact of the use, but the context and the role in the work--you can't do that with a category.   DGG (talk) 00:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Article needed to be sorted, and a couple of nonnotable entried removed, but it looks a lot better now. Doomsday film should probably be merged into this article. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 01:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Indiscriminate collection of some plot summary.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for want of sources that speak to the subject, and for contravention of WP:TRIVIA. This is a good example of why I'm such a hardass on trivia lists, because this list labels a very broad range of fearsome fictional weapons as "Doomsday devices" without much basis. WillOakland (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As I'm sure you're already aware, WP:TRIVIA is against unselective and indiscriminate lists, neither of which describe this page. This page lists different media in which a doomsday device has played a major role/was a major theme, which makes it a selective and discriminate list. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 22:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What this page lists are a bunch of fictional plot devices that some editor thinks are doomsday devices, even though there is not one source of literary criticism to substantiate that. Some of the devices aren't devices, and some of them don't destroy the world. Some are too vague to even begin to know one way or the other. The list is original research and having it in a separate article encourages the growth of precisely what WP:TRIVIA is supposed to restrain. WillOakland (talk) 23:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Would a single review with the word "doomsday" in it be enough to satisfy the OR problem? -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 01:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd really like to see at least one source that analyzes the concept of doomsday weaponry across several works, to establish that there is a subject to write about here. WillOakland (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That makes 4 from the first 3 pages of Google scholar slone--that last one is unquestionably about multiple such cultural references. DGG (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) P Anderson - "American Science Fiction and the Cold War: " 1999 - Taylor & Francis;
 * 2) "Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove: A Guide to Study -" R Carringer - Journal of Aesthetic Education, 1974 -
 * 3) What I Learned Since I Stopped Worrying and Studied the Movie: A Teaching Guide to Stanley Kubrick's..." D Lindley - PS: Political Science and Politics, 2002 - Cambridge Univ Press
 * 4) WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCT1ON in W LAQUEUR, I DOOMSDAY - Terrorism in Perspective, 2003 -"... Edmond Hamilton's" Crashing Suns" appeared in 1928. and Jack Williamson's Space Patrol novels about a doomsday device called" AKKA" a few years later. .."


 * Keep No different from any other "in popular culture" article. Aseld   talk  05:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So what? Some pop culture articles have been deleted recently. And this is different in that the subject exists more in fiction than in reality. WillOakland (talk) 06:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, cite, and remove what isn't citable. WillOakland (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into doomsday films, and rename as doomsday devices in fiction. This isn't a pop cult article, despite its name; it's an article about a major fictional premise (not limited to films).--Father Goose (talk) 01:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It should be about the verifiable development of the doomsday weaponry concept in fiction. That is neither as broad as the overall doomsday concept, nor narrowly limited to films. Which, come to think of it, is what the "Doomsday device" article attempts to be about. WillOakland (talk) 06:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, this time because doomsday devices don't exist in fact. Therefore what can verifiably be said about this subject can be said in the main "Doomsday device" article, which I hadn't looked at until now. That leaves this article, once again, as OR that need not be kept. WillOakland (talk) 06:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why them not existing in fact makes this article subject to deletion. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 21:37, 16 June 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.