Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planet killer 2


 * 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   keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issues of merging, moving, rewriting or what have you can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Planet killer
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article that is chock full of Original Research and appears to have no sense of defining purpose. Also, a renomination per the recommendation of a 2007 AFD discussion available at Articles for deletion/Planet killer. Sadads (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename to List of planet killers. The term "planet killer" seems to be both notable and possessed of a distinct meaning, so the problem here is really that this is a list and not an article.  Once it's been listified it can be pruned of trivial and non-notable mentions and brought up to standard. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Substantially rewrite per DustFormsWords; it doesn't make sense to have List of planet killers and not Planet killer. Morgan Wick (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That would also be a policy-supported option, yes, but seeing as the article's substantially written as a list, listifying it seems like a more efficient way to preserve the existing work on the page, to the extent that some of the content is notable and encyclopaedic. No sense in wasting that work if it can be saved. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Well established science fiction concept, should be expanded upon and made less listy. Artw (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Are there sources that treat this as a distinct topic though? That is what I am worried about. From this point, I think we really need to start over from scratch. I think a list makes more sense, though I think delete is still the best option. Sadads (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is certainly one:
 * It's worth noting that real sources on this subject either address the field of science fiction weaponry in general, not limited to weapons of one specific kind:
 * or address science fiction in relation to fears over the atomic bomb:
 * Uncle G (talk) 15:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, well that pushes my vote to listify then, Sadads (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.  Snotty Wong   speak 06:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename & prune to [ List of science fiction planet killers List of fictional doomsday devices (per Fayenatic london below)] (to emphasise that they are fictional). Care also needs to be taken to restrict membership to devices/etc "capable of either destroying an entire planet or otherwise rendering it uninhabitable" (and probably should be further restricted to devices intended for that purpose) -- "Mass Drivers used by the Centauri against the Narn homeworld" is a clear example of mis-inclusion. Apart from these caveats, this list would appear to describe a notable plot-device in science fiction literature. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Move to List of planet killers in science fiction (or one of the names suggested above) and start a new article that's more like death ray. For the list, it'd help if the term "planet killer" is defined (using any reliable sources). The chemical DDT or a doomsday device could be a "planet killer." The term seems notable per what I see here. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 10:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Additional comment - Something that's been troubling me about this one is that I don't think it should have been an AFD. The problem is with the content of the article which we can fix via editing. Delete section 2 (Planet killers in fiction) and that'll resolve most of the issues with this article. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 07:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Uncle G (talk) 15:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, well that pushes my vote to listify then, Sadads (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.  Snotty Wong   speak 06:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename & prune to [ List of science fiction planet killers List of fictional doomsday devices (per Fayenatic london below)] (to emphasise that they are fictional). Care also needs to be taken to restrict membership to devices/etc "capable of either destroying an entire planet or otherwise rendering it uninhabitable" (and probably should be further restricted to devices intended for that purpose) -- "Mass Drivers used by the Centauri against the Narn homeworld" is a clear example of mis-inclusion. Apart from these caveats, this list would appear to describe a notable plot-device in science fiction literature. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Move to List of planet killers in science fiction (or one of the names suggested above) and start a new article that's more like death ray. For the list, it'd help if the term "planet killer" is defined (using any reliable sources). The chemical DDT or a doomsday device could be a "planet killer." The term seems notable per what I see here. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 10:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Additional comment - Something that's been troubling me about this one is that I don't think it should have been an AFD. The problem is with the content of the article which we can fix via editing. Delete section 2 (Planet killers in fiction) and that'll resolve most of the issues with this article. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 07:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Additional comment - Something that's been troubling me about this one is that I don't think it should have been an AFD. The problem is with the content of the article which we can fix via editing. Delete section 2 (Planet killers in fiction) and that'll resolve most of the issues with this article. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 07:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename to one of the names suggested above and prune anything that doesn't belong. Divebomb is not British 16:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I could suggest some names also, but actually any of the suggested ones would be good, except the present one, because it is necessary to indicate that we're talking about fiction. I would prefer a title without the word list, because we should  also be writing about it as a fictional concept, not just a list of examples.    DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Rename to List of Planet Killers and that's it, its fine. List all planet killers in any notable work of fiction.  D r e a m Focus  08:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That should be, "list all notable planet killers", rather than "list all planet killers in any notable work of fiction". Notability is not inherited. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability is about the right of the article to exist, not the information that is in it. Just a list about episodes list all episodes, not just the ones notable enough to have their own articles.   D r e a m Focus  02:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename as List of fictional doomsday devices, redirect "planet killer" to doomsday device, and merge the list of fictional examples from that page into this one. This list now covers many varieties of doomsday weapons, some of which I would not call planet killers. It makes more sense for this article to be named as a list of fictional examples supporting the other article. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose a rename This would only be taking this article from a borderline-unencyclopedic subject to a thoroughly unencyclopedic one. The proposed "list of planet killers" has no encyclopedic merit and it would be impossible to write an article on the list without using original research. If this article would be kept, at the very least we should remove the entire "planet killer in fiction" section. Nothing but listcruft and original research in there. Them  From  Space 
 * It wouldn't be original research to list things found in notable media which can destroy an entire planet.  D r e a m Focus  04:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it would be, unless you have reliable sources (not just the works themselves) refer to the planet killer as a "planet killer".  Them From  Space  06:04, 16 December 2010 (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.