Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M41A pulse rifle


 * 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 or keep. Ok, I realize that this is ambiguous, so before anyone runs off to DRV, let me explicitly say that there is absolutely no consensus here to delete anything at all. There is also no consensus here (and AfD isn't the right place for it anyway) as to whether these should be merged to different targets, left as stand alone articles, or what have you. Merge discussions are already underway for the majority of these, if not all. Let them play out. LGRdC also mentioned Articles for deletion/Derelict (Alien) below, that perhaps should/could be resurrected to be included in the merge discussions. Let me know on my talk if the history is needed for a future merge. Final note: As closing admin, I'm not merging anything, or redirecting anything. I've no interest or knowledge of this particular subject. Keeper  |   76   |   Disclaimer  21:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

M41A pulse rifle

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

Continuing my listings of Alien-related stubs, here we have a group of articles that are all spin-offs of Aliens (film), each devoted to a different prop, character, organization, or concept from the film. The whole lot seem to fail WP:N, as well as V/OR/RS as they rely entirely on only a couple of primary sources (the film itself and the Colonial Marines Techincal Manual for the most part) and almost entirely lack any secondary source material. High likelihood that there are no significant third-party sources that could be used to support individual articles about these things. The relevant information about characters, casting, props, design, etc. are all already discussed in Alien (film), and everything else present in these articles amounts to fan synthesis, trivial detail, in-universe explanations, and dubious claims to notability, none of which seem possible to expand within the guidelines of WP:FICT. Almost none of these subjects have appeared in any media other than the film itself and tie-in video games, and certainly don't seem to have been the subjects of any significant discussion in third-party sources (at least nothing that's not already well-explained in the film article and List of characters in the Alien series). Again, deletion would be better than redirection as these are spin-off articles that shouldn't have been created in the first place and pretty much only link to other articles via Template:Alien, so dead links will be an easy fix. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge There is currently a merge discussion about most of these entries and it might be best to let those play out. Assuming this carries on, then I'm afraid there are a variety of articles listed and a number of solutions are required. I'd suggest the props can go to Aliens (film) and the people to List of characters in the Alien series. United States Colonial Marines is an interesting one as they appear across a range of media and someone has written a book on them Aliens: Colonial Marines Technical Manual, so I'd suggest those two are merged into their own entry. (Emperor (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC))
 * Comment: As I stated in the nomination, all the pertinent information from these articles is already in either Aliens (film) or List of characters in the Alien series. I was the one who originally placed the merger tags, but I believe they are no longer valid because the necessary info has either already been merged or was already in the target articles before these articles were spun off. In fact I will probably go back through and remove the merget tags, as they are no longer applicable. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The characters can be merged into a "List of characters" article, and the names of all those other articles can be redirected to relevant film articles. Given their use so far, it would be best to redirect them than to delete them (easier to recreate if they're simply deleted in my opinion because the person looking for them will assume that the information is completely gone, instead of seeing the section that contains the info).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  11:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree - we actually do want them to redirect. For example the other people in the character list tend to have their name redirect to the specific area in the page (and those that don't should). Having a redirect in place is a powerful tool, they can also be categorised (an idea I'd favour for some in this case, as it works well for redirects on characters to "lists of characters" articles and is used elsewhere for his purpose). (Emperor (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC))


 * Merge and redirect. Just had looked up a quote and was pleased to find it covered on Wiki. Single articles are not quite needed, though. "List of characters of Alien" and "List of props" will do, though. -- Matthead Discuß   13:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete all; they do not seem to have any individual notability out of the movie/videogames. Tizio 15:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Update on links: I did some work to see where these articles linked, and what kind of work we'd have to to if we decided to redirect them. After removing them from Template:Alien to filter those uses out, I found that almost every place they were linked there was a link to Aliens (film) or List of Characters in the Alien series already elsewhere in the article; often in the same section or even in the same sentence. Therefore I removed the links to these articles, since the potential redirect targets were already linked right nearby. What we're left with is that the only articles that these still link to are each other. They have no other links in the article namespace. Therefore I think the choice to delete is made much easier. The character articles could still potentially be redirected to their entries in the "list of" article, but that would only really be useful for future links that might be created to those character names. At the moment no articles would link to the redirects. IMO redirection also leaves the window open for someone to just revert the articles back into their current states, which we don't want. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think what you did was wrong -- to remove the links to specific articles while they are at AfD is prejudicial. I had not noticed this comment until Ingolfson drew my attention to it--the time to remove the links or the unneeded redirects is after the article has been deleted. while the article is there, the links and redirects should go to it, not the main article. You say they have "no links in the WP mainspace & therefore should be deleted"  but they have no links in the WP mainspace because you removed them yourself just now. DGG (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am also genuinely concerned about this whole thing. AfDs were posted when a merge discussion was ongoing, a whole mixed bag of articles were nominated (which require different solutions) and then this jumping the gun and removing links while the AfD was still ongoing (which could, in theory skew people's perceptions of the articles under discussion). (Emperor (talk) 13:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC))


 * Delete, fictional articles that have no substantial independent coverage. Graevemoore (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep all as notable and verifiable items and characters that appear in films, comics, toys, novels, video games, etc. in what is one of the all-time most significant cultural franchises. Consistent per First pillar with spcialized encyclopedias on Aliens, fictional ships, weapons, characters, etc.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello again, my inclusionist friend. Dare I challenge you to find a reliable third-party reference attesting to the notability of the UD4L Cheyenne? You continue to toss up First Pillar, implying that because Wikipedia incorporates elements of specialized encyclopedias, we cannot exclude anything, even articles about individual props from a movie. So, we should have a separate article for every fictional gun from every science fiction work ever created? And probably a separate article for every single Beanie Baby, because an encyclopedia on toys obviously would, right? Oh, and we should probably have individual articles for each lightsaber used by each individual Jedi in all of Starwarsdom, since they're all different and a Star Wars encyclopedia obviously would. None of this, obviously, would be better served by being merged into larger articles on the fictional work as a whole, with real-world context and third-party sources. Of course this all flies in the face of N, NOT, V, and OR. I apologize for the sarcasm, I just really think that a "strong keep" opinion for these articles is pushing the limits of inclusion and notability to the extreme, especially considering that all the actual encyclopedic content in each is already covered (and better) in the "parent" article Aliens (film) and also in List of characters in the Alien series. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As can be seen at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions, we can exclude plenty, but we're not merely talking about props from movies, we're talking about fictional items and characters that also appear in video games, as toys, in comic books, in novels, etc. And yes, there's no really good reason why a paperless encyclopedia with thousands of editors willing to work on such articles should not cover them.  We do not gain anything by not covering this material; we do by contrast lose information and turn off our readers, contributors, and donors.  If Wikipedia were merely a clone of only general encyclopedias, then what would be the point?  If however it is in fact THE ultimate encyclopedia, then it does serve a real purpose.  The fact is the notability for the items in this mass nom varies from article to article.  Some such as the character Newt has even been the TITLE CHARACTER of a published work in addition to appearing in the movie.  Unless if reviews of these books and other science fiction publications have been exhausted, I highly doubt that especially the character articles could not indeed be expanded with additional real-world context and third-party sources, but all of that falls under SOFIXIT and given the interest in the articles and the realistic likelihood that such information does in fact exist, editors should be given a chance to find and expand the articles accordingly over time on a volunteer project that does not have a deadline.  Original research means advancing a thesis.  Just presenting facts, even when based on primary sources, but without an argument, is consistent with encyclopedic tradition.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll stay succinct this time. I'm not saying there is no room on WP to discuss these items/characters. I am merely saying that they are already discussed in full in the article about the film. The separate articles add nothing but in-universe detail, all drawn from the same source (the technical manual) and are wholly unnecessary. We would lose no information by removing them, as the identical information already exists in the film article. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll be even more succinct. It does not seem to be the truth that the identical information exists, as anyone can see for themselves who looks at Aliens (film). It does not even mention the individual weapons or the spaceship, let alone discuss them.DGG (talk) 12:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It most certainly does. Did you read the "Origins and inspiration", "Concept and design", "Weapons and props", and "Casting" sections? You can see my explanation near the bottom of this discussion for a rundown of exactly what information from each article is already explained in those sections. In brief, it explains what the designs for each weapon & vehicle were based on & how they were made, as well as the original design of the Sulaco vs. the final version and the reasons for the change. So your above statement is absolutely false, which anyone who reads Aliens (film) can see. I'm quite confused how you didn't notice the information in that article and can claim that it doesn't even mention the weapons or ship, when it is plain fact that it does (seeing as they are section headings listed in the table of contents...how more obvious can it be?). I assume you're either confused or that you didn't read the article thoroughly. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect as the compromise for minor elements. It is possible that some of them may be notable individually, and if so those articles can be expanded from the redirects with suitable sourcing. DGG (talk) 04:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * When I say merge and redirect, I meant merge to an article about the weapons for the weapons, and so forth not to the main Aliens article--its reasonable to have a separate article for the various elements of this type, which would clutter up the main article. I also mean to retain a good deal of the content. I believe by "smerge" some people here may mean to leave just the bare direct and list only the name somewhere, and that also is not really a compromise. A merge like that is effectually just a reversible deletion. A true merge preserves content. How much content is preserved would be an editorial decision, to be decided by consensus.  DGG (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge very brief details of each topic back into the article on the movies. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Smerge per above. Minor elements of the franchise shouldn't have their own pages. Stifle (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note - While I sadly cannot at the moment provide any comments that would save at least the more important articles in here (Sulaco, Colonial Marines) I feel that it is bad form to dump them all in one Yeah/Nay decision. I am also seriously disturbed that the nominator simply removed ALL links to these articles from Wikipedia / redirected them BEFORE this was decided. I feel this is a serious breach of going into an AfD with a fair stance. Ingolfson (talk) 11:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep for the Sulaco (spaceship) article. For the following reasons:
 * 1) I have provided further references, including a social sciences paper which discusses the significance of why the Sulaco is named after the specific town in Conrad's book.
 * 2) There is a video game coming out in 2008 which will feature the Sulaco as a main setting, thus providing more material about its in-universe history. As a major setting of a video game in a huge franchise, this will cause third-party notability to increase substantially.
 * 3) I have provided further references, including about the film set design reasons for the shape of the ship, and some ways the ship has been referenced in popular culture.
 * I will also keep adding more refs where I can find them. In sum, I feel that there is enough material in that article that it should remain standing on its own. The nominator noted that all relevant information can easily be merged into the main Aliens article. This may be true for articles like about the pulse rifle, but much less so for elements like the Sulaco. We should not try to cram everything into the main article. That is what spin-off articles are FOR and that is why Wikipedia recommends splitting articles off. Ingolfson (talk) 12:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still for merging all. Providing source that back up the in-universe information does not mean that the subject shows notability in the real world. The point of notability is significant coverage. The real world information in this article consists of a paragraph on the design and two lines of popular culture information, as everything else is in-universe information. Nothing on this page screams, "We can't fit in the Aliens article]]!". Given the size of Aliens, with readable prose not even reaching 30kb, I don't see why this article needs to be split. It will work just fine in the parent article, as the excessive in-universe information will be removed. The entire "Description" section contains information that, without any real world context, is only relevant to fans of the franchise. Why is it important that we know how much it weighs and how much it can carry? It isn't a real ship. All in-universe information is here to provide context for the real world information in an article, and what's there doesn't. It can easily go without actually damaging the understanding of the Suloca information, and that information can be merged into the Aliens article without making that article too long (heck, it will help beef up the article if it ever wants to get to FA). What I want to see is an Aliens and Alien article that contains all this information in an organized fashion. When everything is in those articles we should be able to see quite easily if something isn't going to fit (i.e. there's too much real world info that it's making the article overly long).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That is certainly is an improvement, while Bignole makes a good argument, what it does show is that there is potential for a better article and I have looked around and found other sources. I'm changing my suggestion to keep, we can always return to this later but I think we have a good article shaping up here and I'd not want to lose it. (Emperor (talk) 13:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC))
 * I think you've done some really good work there in adding to the article, but like Bignole I'm still of the opinion that the information you've added could and should be merged into Aliens (film), while the stub articles like the APC should simply be deleted. I may look at it later and see how much of the real-world info with third-party sources I can add into the Aliens article; I'm inclined to think it will fit quite nicely and help beef up that article while not really being enough to justify a stand-alone article. I'd also like to address a couple of your specific points: for #2, in-universe information should not be the focus of the article according to most of the pertinent guidelines such as WP:WAF, and per WP:CRYSTAL we shouldn't assume that because the ship features as a setting in an upcoming video game that this is going to result in lots of third-party references to be created that directly discuss the notability and impact of the ship itself. That is, in effect, attempting to predict some kind of increased future notability and is a rather weak argument. For #3 - the design reasons for the shape of the ship are already presented in Aliens (film), and though I do appreciate your presentation of the popular culture info as prose (rather than the typical trivia lists that plague these types of article), it's still rather trivial information that would fit rather well in the Aliens article (for example, in a section discussing the tie-in licensed products related to the film). --IllaZilla (talk) 16:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You note that Aliens as an article is 35k of prose. If we moved the referenced sections from Sulaco over this would approach 40k (of course you and I would likely disagree on how much should be moved!). With 40k it is in the area range where Wikipedia suggest splitting up the article might be an option!


 * BTW, Bignole, can I ask you not to start moving material over to Aliens before there is a decision on the Sulaco article. As per my previous comments, the outcome of this AfD should not be pre-judged.


 * Also, I simply do not see the reason to merge - the split/merge dichtomy is simply about organisation of data (technically we could copy-paste ALL of the subarticle info into the larger article after all). However, a subarticle is a tidier, cleaner, more succinct focus on the material covered. I consider that forcing a merge is wrong (if in the end this is indeed the result of this discussion) - why the focus on merging those articles (of this list) where a significant number of people disagree on whether they should be merged? I agree with you that minor elements like M41A pulse rifle and M56 smart gun and Private William Hudson need not have their own articles. BUT.


 * The Sulaco however is a setting, backdrop to maybe 1/3rd or more of the film, a major plot device (being the 'sanctuary' that the ground troops try to return to from the hell of the Aliens-infested surface) and also a large setting in an upcoming game (whether that will produce third-party references or not).


 * Also, I disagree with Bignole's comment about notablity. Notability is defined as "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." In his "there's not much here" comment, Bignole remarks that a few lines of film set design and popular culture references do not make it significant. Why? Because of the ratio compared to other (primary source) information? I note that primary sources are, on Wikipedia, acceptable to describe in-universe elements (and we have TWO primary sources in which it features heavily, to be 3 later in 2008). I also note that I have no serious issues with paring down these primary source sections if requested. Much of it is in the infobox in any case. The mention of the Sulaco in a number of interviews as referenced is also clearly more than trivial (it covers multiple questions and paragraphs in the interviews). As a significant aside, Bignole also ignores the social sciences section discussing the etymology and symbology of the ship's name.


 * Finally, I am still searching for references, and another user has pointed me to a few that look promising, as well as to some academic articles which may contain material (but which we cannot directly access - trying to, atm - as they are subscription only). In sum, I am still improving this, and would like the discussion on this article Sulaco (spaceship) to be split off from the AfD about the other articles, where I mostly agree with the nomination or at least don't feel so strongly about keeping them. Regards, Ingolfson (talk) 06:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

First off, let me issue an apology for jumping the gun a bit on removing the links from the other articles. This was something I'd been working on for some time, ever since I marked the articles for merger back in March. Discussion on those merger proposals didn't start taking place until May (see here). There were only a few contributors and the general conculsion seemed to be that most of these articles already had all their encyclopedic content presented in Aliens (film), hence there was nothing left to merge. That's why I brought them to AfD in the first place and removed the merge tags shortly after. Since the opinions here seemed heavily weighted in favor of deletion or merger, I started going through the "what links here" pages to see what their status was. As I stated above, I found that in 90% of the cases the articles we'd likely be merging or redirecting to were already linked in the same sentence or section (ie. "The M41A pulse rifle used in Aliens...") So common sense told me it would be redundant to have a redirect to an article that's already linked by it's proper title in the same sentence. That's why I started trimming the links, though I admit I probably went overboard in away that could affect people's opinions in this AfD. For that I apologize. Secondly, though I'm still of the opinion that none of these topics have enough secondary source material available to warrant stand-alone articles, I agree with Ingolfson that we could remove the Sulaco article from the list since he has put a lot of effort into saving it. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, and that article can always be dealt with on its own sometime in the future if need be. As for the rest, I'm still of the opinion that they can and probably should be deleted, as they don't contain any verifiable, sourced information that's not already presented either in Aliens (film) or List of characters in the Alien series. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Added more material on the Sulaco. This time on the color and lighting symbology of the Sulaco as a film setting. Academic research, fits the "more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." descriptor perfectly. Ingolfson (talk) 06:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to be specific about the relevant info from each article already being present in the film & list articles. Here's a breakdown: So there we go. From those 8 articles I could only find a few sentences' worth of stuff that might be merged into Aliens (film). The rest is all unreferenced claims, plot summary, in-universe info, and filler. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * M41A pulse rifle: The only relevant info appears to be the "prop design" section, which is already presented pretty much verbatim in Aliens (film). There's a little bit about models based on the prop, but these appear to be of questionable relevance to the article (as they appear to be one-off models made by specialty manufacturers and not actual licensed products used to promote the film). The article contains no secondary sources at all.
 * M56 smart gun: Again, the only real-world referenced info is "The prop" section, which is presented nearly verbatim in Aliens (film).
 * M577 A.P.C.: "Concept and design" is the relevant real-world info here, and is already in Aliens (film) (again, nearly verbatim) along with discussion of the other vehicles.
 * UD4L Cheyenne: Same as above; "Concept and design" is the salveagable section and the identical info is at Aliens (film). There may be a few additional details we could merge over to the film article, but only the first paragraph is referenced so it's unclear how much of the other info is verifiable.
 * United States Colonial Marines: No secondary sources or discussion of real-world context in this one at all. Aliens (film) has referenced info about the training that the actors playing the marines went through to prep for the roles. Everything in the Colonial Marines articles is either plot summary of stuff from the film, a repetition of part of the "cast" section from the film article, and a lot of in-universe stuff from the Colonial Marines Technical Manual but only 1 actual citation to it. In addition, the article contains numerous unreferenced speculative claims that appear to constitute original research.
 * Corporal Dwayne Hicks: No references at all. Mostly plot summary and unattributed claims. The info relevant to the character & actor is already in Aliens (film) and Aliens (film), and the in-universe plot summary stuff is already in Aliens (film) and List of characters in the Alien series.
 * Private William Hudson: Again, the only referenced real-world info is in the "Production" section, and is merely a repeat of Aliens (film). The plot summary bits are also in List of characters in the Alien series.
 * Newt (Aliens) Only a single reference, relating the character to the plot of Alien Resurrection, which should probably go in Alien Resurrection. The "Character motivation" stuff might be mergeable into Aliens (film) or Aliens (film) if it were referenced, but it isn't. The rest of the article is simply repetition of plot summary from the individual film articles. The character also has a section in List of characters in the Alien series.


 * Just to note the point (and thanks for being willing to reconsider, IllaZilla) I have added a number of further reference to the Sulaco as a movie setting and its use of symbology (interestingly, one comparing the Sulaco of Alien 3 to a holy shrine - sounds a bit weird, but makes a lot of sense when you analyse the opening scene of Alien 3 as one researcher has done. Have a look at what I added). Regards Ingolfson (talk) 10:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy close - Apparently in the middle of merge discussions, and also because "Aliens-related" is kind of a broad umbrella to nominate all of these. I'd be fine outright deleting some of these, merging others. I feel sorry for the admin. who tries to sort through all this. (But if this continues through: delete the character and vehicle articles, merge real-world prop design info from weapons articles into Aliens (film). --EEMIV (talk) 11:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge Any information not in other articles should be merged, and the current articles deleted. Particularly, I think it would be wise to keep as many of the significant external links as possible, as just from skimming through there are some that I think it would be a shame to lose. Anything new in the upcoming Aliens video game involving the Sulaco can be put there when it's finally released. Too bad this discussion hadn't happened at that time, because I think it would be a little less messy. I have my doubts, but it seems like some of this information could be pertinent upon the release of the game's release, but that's depending on a lot of factors. --Trakon (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Slight Merge (instead of "keep") - pardon me for musing aloud, but I wonder if - had Wikipedia been around back in the 60's - if we would have considered Star Trek communicators and computers along these same lines. As they were the forerunners of modern devices (and indeed the computers we are using to post and read threads here and yes, I am aware of the futurism concerns in my comments), I think that information specifically imparted by either the films or the literature (and therefore notable) deserves mentioning, not removal. -  Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: If we are merging the above, then we should also resurrect Articles for deletion/Derelict (Alien). Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That was a separate AfD that doesn't need to be drug into this one. The ship doesn't even appear in Aliens, except for a deleted scene that I believe used footage from Alien. As that AfD states, there was nothing left to merge into either Alien (film) or Aliens (film); all the pertinent info was already covered and the entire rest of the Derelict article was blatant original research. If you want to initiate a DRV of that article, go ahead, but don't try to piggyback it onto this separate AfD. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is of a similar nature to the articles listed here and there was no actual consensus there anyway. Best, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is of a similar nature, but the reason I listed it separately from these is that it had a different parent article and therefore had to be evaluated separately, while these could much more likely be examined as a group. The Derelict article was a spinoff of Aliens (film), while these are spinoffs of Aliens (film), therefore it would have been a bit of a red herring in this AfD. I disagree that there was no "actual" consensus in that AfD. Simply because you do not agree with the deletion decision does not mean there wasn't consensus (consensus not being defined as 100% agreement). I count 5 editors (including myself) in that AfD as being in favor of deletion, while only yourself and DGG were strongly in favor of "keep", with decent rationalizations for opinions both sides. Not that I'm judging on numbers alone, but I'd say that qualifies as consensus (I also agreed much more strongly with the arguments for deletion than for keeping). But I digress...If you feel that there was insufficient consensus to delete, then you have the prerogative to initiate a DRV. But it shouldn't be piggybacked onto this discussion as that AfD is closed and concerned a spinoff of a different parent article. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The Derelict is part of the larger franchise with appearances in the extended version of Aliens, the novelization of Alien, and even as a micromachine toy, just as all of the above are not merely limited to Aliens, but to the expanded universe as well as they do NOT only appear in that one film, but also in games and comics. AfD is not a vote.  Even if there was a majority to delete, the arguments were not strong enough to overwhelm the keep arguments.  As deletion is something of an extreme measure intended only if an article is absolutely hopeless (which obviously means multiple good faith editors would argue to keep in such a case).  Thus, there was no consensus.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge as there are no reliable sources that provide evidence of notability outside the film.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's just not true; many of the above have appeared in comics, as toyrs, in games, etc. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, he did not say that they hadn't appeared outside the film; he said there are no reliable sources provided to evidence their notability outside the film. This is in fact true, as there are few to no third-party sources in any of these articles. This is a valid argument and echoes one of the chief concerns expressed by myself and several others thus far in this discussion. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The various aspects of Aliens are covered in a host of reliable published sources; there are many reliable third-party sources that can be added to these articles. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete the weapons, but Merge the characters. That is all. Blast Ulna (talk) 06:53, 21 May 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.