Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sentry gun (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Rough consensus is that the subject is a notable concept to be expanded and improved. Regards,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 18:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Sentry gun
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Largely non-notable, makes claim that CIWS systems are referred to as sentry guns, when that term is basically only used in fiction, without any support. Article was initially about fictional uses, with a slight amount of coverage of real uses, but since had fictional info cut out. rdfox 76 (talk) 01:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand, as there is some use of the term outside fiction, or redirect to Close-in weapon system which is very similar.--Dmol (talk) 02:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Ooo, this is complicated. I mean, sentry guns are well-known by the general population, but it's rather hard to find sources about real life versions. Obviously there has to be some out there, but it could be quite the task. A cursory Google news search for me just kept pulling up stuff for Team Fortress 2. :/ Silver  seren C 04:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment they're also called "auto guns", but good luck searching that, since you'll find alot of stuff about automatic weapons (ie. machine guns) in the mix... 70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete After looking fairly hard, there don't seem to be any real world examples. The Samsung thing appeared in the news briefly back in 2005, and hasn't been heard of since.  So it probably never got beyond the prototype stage.  Most of the serious military powers don't build fixed defense systems; that went out with the Maginot Line.  Mobile military robots are quite real, and there's serious discussion over how much armament and autonomy to allow them.  But that's covered under Killbot. --John Nagle (talk) 05:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I think that there should probably still be a "Sentry guns in fiction" section. There'd be more than enough references for that. Silver  seren C 05:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  —AustralianRupert (talk) 09:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep and Revert. The article has suffered badly from vandalism in the last fortnight and is currenly locked. Sentry guns are very notable in computer games and all reference to them has been deleted in that vandalism. What is left is reference to real world military use which could be redirected to CIWS without much complaint. However to most people a sentry gun exists in a game, they will never have seen or care about a 'real' one. Computer games gross more in revenue than films these days and sentry guns are very common. Szzuk (talk) 13:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep and Revert as well as rename There appears to be no real world use of this term, as such this should be Sentry Guns (fiction). Remove all teh dubious real world stuff.Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Kee and revert to the fictional uses. The usage in fictional media is certainly notable.  bahamut0013  words deeds 19:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Sentry guns are not real, a google search proves that. There is no weapon in the world that is completely autonomous. The Phalanx is in many respects no different from any other CIWS and is controlled by humans, just not "aimed" however. Ryan 4314   (talk) 02:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Then what about using the article as sentry guns in fiction, which it was a couple days ago, before it was suddenly attacked by a swarm of vandals? Silver  seren C 05:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I especially don't think we should have an article on a fictional type of gun, that belongs on wikia. I assume those "vandals" were attempting to save the article by giving it some real-world notability. Ryan 4314   (talk) 06:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The article has little real world notability. Please explain your rationale in more depth, it isn't obvious why this shouldn't be a fictional article? Szzuk (talk) 06:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Real world application" is NOT a requirement for notability. All a subject article needs is sources that are from reliable publications. Sentry guns in fiction are notable from various references and descriptions across the board. The article did not need to be saved and it did not need real world applications applied to it, because it has none. Silver  seren C 06:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL "sentry guns" are not notable, they've never even been a main subject of a work of fiction. Ryan 4314   (talk) 07:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep and Revert From the reasons other people have put, I do believe that it was a worthy article back when it was about sentry guns and their use in fiction. That is a worthy topic, what it is currently is not. Silver  seren C 05:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  — Ryan 4314   (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, but rewrite (or revert). Keep it on subject, and keep out the blatant spamming.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Perhaps automatic weapons systems would be a better name. Found this in Wired magazine    D r e a m Focus  09:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Can't find any mention of sentry gun, am I missing it?Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Automatic, self-aware defense systems would, essentially, be sentry guns. That's his point, I believe. Silver  seren C 18:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OR. Ryan 4314   (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Its not original research, its common sense. I suggested we change the name to automatic weapons systems, since the only thing officially caused sentry guns are in video games.  List real life systems, and then list the fictional ones afterward.   D r e a m Focus  21:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * These weapon systems are not "automatic", so it is wrong for you to decide to dub them "automatic weapons systems". Plus we have an article on these weapons already which is far more precise. Ryan 4314   (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * +Also I would add that unless a weapon system is called or classed by RS as a sentry gun we cannot call it one. Nor do we need two articels on the same subject. Also is there an RS that defines what is meant by the term sentry gun?Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * One could probably be found, but, once again, it would likely be a source that's speaking in terms of fiction. Silver  seren C 18:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The article has to become solely fictional sentry guns, with real world sentry guns mentioned as 'other uses' and sent to CIWS. Szzuk (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, like I noted below, there was an earlier version that is much better. And any real world applications from there can be trimmed down if necessary. Silver  seren C 19:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That version is quite good, I looked but didn't find anything as close. I think it is best to simply delete the real world mentions. Then say This article is about the fictional sentry guns in video games. For real world sentry guns see CIWS. Szzuk (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I should add that the fictional element should be brought to the fore or else the same reversal may occur again. Szzuk (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete There don't seem to be any third party sources discussing this. Unless reliable third-party sources are produced, this is just original research. AniMate  22:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at what the prior version of this article was, the version we are all voting to revert it to? Silver  seren C 00:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, those sources aren't exactly reliable. AniMate  00:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The refs aren't much no. But the article there is quite substantial and it is hard to argue that the topic doesn't pass GNG. Szzuk (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The only way to prove something passes GNG is with sources. If this topic actually is notable, find some sources. AniMate  20:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The votes in this discussion, 8 keep and 3 delete, say its notable. It can be verified later. Szzuk (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about. Numbers in these discussions are secondary to strength of arguments. If you can't find sources, and it sounds like you can't, we cannot have an article on this. It's simple. The best and only way to keep an article from being deleted is to source it. AniMate  21:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * AFDs that take this form never end in delete. WP is a work in progress - WP:NOTDONE. Simple. Szzuk (talk) 06:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, but suggest separating into two articles, to keep the real-world and fictional content apart. Surprisingly, the fictional concept may actually be the more notable one here, but either way there's probably enough references to write a decent article on the subject. Robofish (talk) 04:18, 24 April 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.