Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morita (Starship Troopers)


 * 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 Delete. Unsourced, no real-world notability asserted. Black Kite 23:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Morita (Starship Troopers)

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

Fictional weapon, appears to fail WP:N. Content could be merged to the film article, but anything more than a line would seem to be undue weight. Skomorokh 21:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Also listed in this deletion debate:


 * There is no reason for it to be deleted. There needs to be more articles about Starship Troopers and everything in the article is fact. Who cares if it is a fictional weapon, it's in the Starship Trooper universe so therefor the article needs to remain. There are many more articles on here about fictional weapons so there is no reason for it to be deleted. Also it does not fail WP:N, it meets the requirements. General Mannino (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Greetings, General. I have responded to your comments at your talkpage. You say that "it does fail WP:N" but then say that "it meets requirements". Which requirements do you mean, if not WP:N? You may also want to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, for arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Regards, Skomorokh  21:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL @ the idea of an article about a fictional weapon being "fact". JuJube (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete blatantly non-notable. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 21:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * How is it not notable? There's many articles on here about fictional weapons of movies, video games, etc. so why is this one so different? It's not different, it's the same, so if this gets deleted than that means many other articles should be deleted as well. And by the way I made a typo error, I meant to say it does NOT fail WP:N. General Mannino (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. No notability is established, and the referencing is inadequate, much of the article appears to be WP:OR, and what little notable material could be seen could be a brief mention in one of the more main articles. Cirt (talk) 23:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete both total fancruft. JuJube (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You people probably don't know a thing about Starship Troopers. It's not fancruft, which by the way isn't a word, it's true hardcore fact. General Mannino (talk) 03:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither is Morita. :\ JuJube (talk) 04:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I read the book several times since I was 14, and (unlike most critics) I enjoyed the movie a lot, although (unlike most fans) I took it mostly as campy political satire. Please cut down on the incivility. There are other Wikis for obscure fan content, you can host your article on one of them. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 09:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep both and start a merge discussion. Nominator admits "Content could be merged to the film article." Articles that can be merged should not be nominated for deletion. Next time consider putting a merge tag on the article first, per WP:ATD . Merging certainly doesn't require a deletion discussion beforehand. --Pixelface (talk) 10:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * These articles do not contain enough relevant information even about the film do deserve much space in that article. Would readers of The Godfather article want several paragraphs on the types of gun used? No. So to "merge" would be to effectively delete 95% of the content of this article. In such situations, calling it a merge is disingenuous, and the community should discuss whether or not the content deserves to be kept or not. Skomorokh  12:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. (Yes, I know it's not a character)  -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to film article or a spinoff on weaponry in Starship Troopers, as per WP:FICTION. No real world notability is claimed for this weapon (nor is any likely to be found), so a stand-alone article is unlikely to meet WP:Notability.--Fabrictramp (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable at all Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is NOT fan content! You people probably have never seen the movie and in the movie their gun is called the Morita! Watch the movie for proof! Also what about the article M41A pulse rifle from the movie Aliens, it's a fictional weapon and it's not tagged for deletion so why is this? They're basically the same thing except from different movies and a different kind of gun! If this page gets deleted, so should that page! It doesn't need any real world notability because it's a fictional gun like the M41A pulse rifle! If there isn't enough "relevant information" in the article than myself or other people who have seen the ilm can add more content! This is not fan content! It is straight from the film! The information I got are from official Starship Troopers websites such as the official movie websites and the official game website! And by the way Skomorokh, there wouldn't be articles with the types of guns used in The Godfather because they are real guns. The Morita is not real and deserves an article because it is straight from the Starship Troopers film.General Mannino (talk) 01:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep- I agree with General Mannino. I've seen all of the films and played the game, and right now I'm reading the book, I know a lot about Starship Troopers. I think the page Morita should be kept because it is something regarding the film and is not fan created. MI General (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, finally someone agrees. General Mannino (talk) 01:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin: User:MI General's only edits prior to this Afd were to her own userpage and to the article up for deletion. Possible sock. Skomorokh  04:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I just joined Wikipedia. I was browsing through some Starship Troopers articles and I stumbled upon this. I decided to create an account and post my opinion. MI General (talk) 01:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, no independent secondary sources about this topic. Ergo, it is not notable. Blast Ulna (talk) 08:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable aspect of a fictional work with multiple published sources to verify information. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. General Mannino (talk) 15:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! :)  Happy editing!  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What on earth is an Amazon search for "starship troopers" supposed to show? We're discussing the notability of this "Morita" weapon, not of Starship Troopers. This weapon was named only in the Verhoeven films, not in the book (although it might be in some non-canon licensed material like the RPG.) &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 17:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Then it's appropriate as a sub-article or it could be redirected without deletion to preserve editors' public contributions, but there's no valid reason for outright deletion. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's cruft, and appealing to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an obvious no-no. Furthermore, I think I smell socks here... Sojourner001 (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSCRUFT is never an acceptable "reason" for deletion. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because it's not in the book doesn't mean it should be deleted, not everything revolves around the book, you're basically saying that the movie article should be deleted also, the M41A pulse rifle from the movie Aliens is a fictional weapon, but it's a weapon in the movie and is not a weapon used anywhere else and it has an article, this is no different. NOT EVERYTHING REVOLVES AROUND THE BOOK! General Mannino (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's already been clearly explained to you that just because the M41 pulse rifle has an article, it doesn't mean that the Morita should. Neither deserves an article because knowing the name and story behind the weapon doesn't give the reader any deeper comprehension of the movie or the book, and is essentially of little to no practical use to anyone. Even if the movie were about the development of a particular infantry rifle and the political and social ramifications therein, it still wouldn't be deserving of its own article. This article is cruft because it attempts to elevate a piece of inconsequential and non-notable trivia into a subject of encyclopedic significance, which it quite clearly is not. Sojourner001 (talk) 20:29, 6 April 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.