Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heat-Ray


 * 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The result was withdrawn by nom. Non-admin closure. – sgeureka t•c 16:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Heat-Ray

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is just a compilation of the uses of the Heat-Ray in the War of the Worlds stories and adaptations, with no notability or referencing outside of that context. It's just in-universe plot repetition from the plot section of the War of the Worlds articles and is duplicative of that information with original research thrown in. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1 minute with Google Books turns up page 99 of ISBN 0742540359 which discusses how reader perceptions of the Heat-Ray changed between 1898 and 1950. And that was merely the second search result that I read.  Many books, including ISBN 0306415461, discuss the Heat-Ray and its relationship both to modern weapons and modern warfare tactics.  And then there's ISBN 0786400935, which discusses how sound effects technicians created the sound effect for the Heat-Ray in films.  Please put in the effort of looking for sources before nominating articles for deletion, as both our Deletion policy and the Guide to deletion tell you to do.  AFD is not cleanup. Uncle G (talk) 04:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: Uncle G has demonstrated the existence of sources that make it pass WP:FICT; the rest is cleanup. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - the Heat-Ray has its infamy in and outside of The War of the Worlds. Deleting it won't solve the problem. Reginmund (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Uncle G, who beat me to the punch on the cursory Google search that should be done by all nominators before AfD'ing an article as having no sources. The same goes for external notability. It takes 2 minutes. All attempts to improve an article should be made before bringing it to AfD. If you're not willing to do it yourself, tag it with improvement tags, link the Google search on the talk page, and move along. It takes the same amount of time as AfD'ing something and it's much more constructive. AFD is backed up enough as it is. LaMenta3 (talk) 06:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Uncle G, clearly passes WP:FICT with several sources available to show its out-of-universe notability. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 06:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep A hugely influential concept which has shaped any number of later stories and sci fi ideas and even real life military projects. I'd agree with the others that nominators who say an article has no sources or references should spend a few minutes actually looking for them (and adding them if they feel that strongly about it) before wasting everyone else's time at AfD. Nick mallory (talk) 06:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into Martian (War of the Worlds) (which is fairly short) until the time comes that someone actually wants to establish (not just assert) individual notability as needed per WP:FICT. It has been 1.5 years without any sources added, so there's nothing to suggest that it is going to happen tomorrow either. The article sounds very much like personal essaylike observation, and I as an outside to H. G. Wells's world just see WP:FANCRUFT (sorry). – sgeureka t•c 11:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Withdraw - True, I did not search Google Books on this one, and you have found so many great references! I will do so in future Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2007 (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.