Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Supersoldiers in fiction


 * 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. The different opinions range from clear keep, via merge (but no target identified), to delete. It also doesn't seem that another relist would lead to a clear consensus. The article as it stands is poorly sourced and indeed seems to contain quite a lot of OR/SYNTH, but those are problems that can be solved by editing. If, after pruning, this list is of a size that would justify merging, I would suggest military science fiction as a possible target. In any case, at this point it is clear that there is no consensus here and I am closing accordingly. Randykitty (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

List of Supersoldiers in fiction

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Everything in this article is based on original research or unreliable sources. We can't just make our own observations about what is and is not a fictional supersoldier, that simply is not how Wikipedia works. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wow. Original research is putting it mildly. Defining who qualifies for this list has been done almost without sources, and I find it difficult to imagine how one could ever find reliable sources for such claims. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 08:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article Supersoldier cleary states that a Supersoldier is "capable of operating beyond normal human limits or abilities" which meens that it meets the criteria of what a Supersoldier is. Moreover, if its defined as an original source, than why not go further and delete Flying car, Hovercar, Holography in fiction, and others, as there are no clearly referenced solid definition for these terms either. --Virtualerian (talk) 08:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not generally considered a valid argument for keeping. Any content which is based on users deciding for themselves which items meet certain criteria and which don't is original research. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As previously stated, there are no clearly referenced solid definitions for other science fiction elements, such as rayguns, and they still have their own lists. I think we should just rename the article to "List of fictional soldiers" (That would be similar to "list of fictional extraterrestrials", "list of fictional books" and others). I think it comprises a good list as well. --Virtualerian (talk) 00:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand my point. It isn't whether or not we have a firm definition of what a super soldier is. It is if users are using their own judgement, as opposed to reliable sources, to decide if a particular fictional soldier meets that definition. Articles on fictional topics often suffer from this misunderstanding. What is required is a reliable source for each individual entry that identifies that specific fictional soldier as a supersoldier. If we don't have that, the entry should not be on the list. If there aren't enough sources to properly verify a stand alone list article then we shouldn't have one. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Most fictional topics suffer from that indeed. I think it should renamed List of fictional soldiers in science fiction or something similar.--Virtualerian (talk) 03:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, but with a lot of pruning and clarification. Supersoldier presents an unsourced, ridiculously hazy definition, according to which any elite soldiers, e.g. Green Berets, SAS, Spetsnaz, would qualify. The cleanest way is to include entries whose fictional works explicitly state they are "supersoldiers". That would include Saurons, but exclude the Mobile Infantry of Starship Troopers. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's kind of my point. If we reduce this list only to what can actually be referenced, it might, maybe, contain two items. That's not enough for a list article. I've already removed a "in fiction" section from the parent article for these same reasons. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There are the Saurons (and Sauron Death's Heads, who are super-duper soldiers), the Morthans of David Gerrold's Star Wolf series, and Super Soldiers, just to name a few. Enough to justify a list. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I take it that you're saying that your interpretation of these books is that these characters meet the definition of "supersoldiers" as defined in the Wikipedia article. To me, that's analysis. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep. That is my whole point. If we are deciding for ourselves what is and is not a supersoldier, we're doing it wrong. Not one single entry has a ref that leads to a source that even uses the word "supersoldier". That means that this six-year-old article is 100% unverified. Yes, there do appear to be two refs, but one is to some sort of fan page and does not use the word "supersoldier" and the other is a webcomic that... I don't even know what it is or why anyone thought it was even relevant to this article. If there are, as has been suggested, users who are interested enough in this topic to try and find some actual sources, sources that clearly define specific entities as supersoldiers so that we aren't deciding for ourselves, I would suggest that those users either step up now and add those sources or that the article be userfied until such time as it is no longer in this unacceptable state. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope. That's the exact opposite of what I said. I said the Wikipedia definition is useless. The criterion I suggested was the fictional works themselves identifying their characters as supersoldiers. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Although not a fan of "military sf" I do see that connections can be drawn from many sf sources to create an informative list such as this. But I am also aware of the need to reference secondary sources to comply with Wikipedia guidelines.  Throwing out all this work seems a little radical to me when the list would be perfectly acceptable if adequate referencing was undertaken. The article has been around since 2008, and it has had 99 edits by 68 distinct users.  That strikes me as indicating an acceptable level of relevance. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 23:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem with that argument is that it implies that if enough users engage in original research that makes it ok. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A quick web search brought up this page (http://futurewarstories.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/fws-topics-super-soldiers.html) as a major essay on the subject (again unreferenced) and various other references to "DARPA's Defense Sciences Office" projects. What I was attempting to point out was that there are a number of editors who obviously believe that the topic is of interest.  I think that if just a few of them took the time to add a few references to the existing page then it would quickly fulfill the referencing requirements.  There are a lot of lists on Wikipedia which could be accused of being original research.  Until the original editors created the pages 2013 in literature or List of religious ideas in science fiction I very much doubt there was a single source of such information anywhere on the net.  So in many ways it is original research but it includes references. It may be that the editors of the page under discussion have added in more commentary on the entries in their list than is usual for lists of this sort.  But again I believe this indicates an editing requirement for the page rather than a blanket deletion (see citation notification on List of religious ideas in science fiction). Perry Middlemiss (talk) 02:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis - 2&cent; 16:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)




 * Merge "Super-soldiers in Fiction" fall mostly within a sub-genera of Science Fiction and as such the information contained within this entry could present in a table to those interested in the subject.  Each and every entry would need to be referenced.  Presently the content reads as original research  and as such needs either to be firmed or deleted.  Generally, it would be easier to write an article than it would be to write an article that has been properly sourced.    A Wikipedia Sandbox would be a more appropriate home for this entry. Lfrankblam 21:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, but I have to say you are kind of all over the place with this remark. You start with saying to merge without really identifying where it should be merged to, then seem to advocate outright deletion, and finally userfication. If I was closing this discussion I would have no idea how to interpret this comment. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep adequately defined and sufficiently notable. This is an appropriate encyclopedia article for WP, which has always covered science fiction in greater detail than most other subjects. I can think of not rational place where the content could be merged without creating too extensive and complicated a list.  DGG ( talk ) 17:03, 31 October 2014 (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.