Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weapons in science 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   keep with the caveat to clean up or risk another AfD nom. Bearian (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Weapons in science fiction

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

This article is a bunch of original, meaningless generalities and fluff. Every assertion is preempted by "tend", "may", or "generally". This article contains no real information, and I can't imagine that anyone would get anything out of it. It's hard to fault anyone for this; the concept is so ridiculously broad that any generalizations would necessarily be wildly inaccurate.

For those looking for a specific reason: Violates WP:OR and WP:NOTE. Mintrick (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 *  Delete  I think it might be possible for there to be an article around this general topic (e.g. "Views of Weaponry by Futurists" etc) but such an article would have to be about compiling sociology or theoretical engineering research, citing published scholarly works on those subjects. This is very much NOT such an article.  This strikes me most under the heading of Wikipedia is not for things made up one day as it's clearly original research from beginning to end.  Rayguns have their own article, as to several other objects and topics linked in this arbitrary compilation, so no one is losing information by deleting this. -Markeer 17:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep some nice new work on it, good job. -Markeer 03:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Seems like WP:OR to me, and is unsourced.  As a topic, it's a bit random/haphazard.  I could see wikipedia having a page on this topic--if and only if there are multiple quality sources that have written specifically about the topic as a whole as a topic in and of itself--and not just mentioned various weapons in science fiction in isolation.  Cazort (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Unfortunately, the topic does not seem to be notable. This is OR, synthesis. I can't find sources to justify it as a topic :( ...I was going to have a go at shaping this article up myself. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and mark for cleanup. Science fictional weaponry is a clearly notable topic, and there are plenty of sources which could be used to improve this article and fix OR conerns, e.g. Hamilton Weapons of Science Fiction ISBN 1596799978, the entry on the topic in Nicholls Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (Doubleday 1979), another entry on the topic in Prucher & Wolfe Brave New Words: The Oxford Dictionary of Science Fiction ISBN 0195305671, another in Stableford Science Fiction and Fact ISBN 0415974607, Snelson, Hersch & Krasnoff Science Fiction Weapons ISBN 0931064139, Seed American Science Fiction and the Cold War ISBN 1853312274, and many many more appropriate sources. JulesH (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So, you agree that the article as it stands is unacceptable? Then I would suggest that this article be deleted, not all future incarnations that might have something in common with it. While Wikipedia is a work in progress, that is true for both article creation and article deletion. If a new article is created, using sources like those you've suggested, it would have nothing in common with this mess of platitudes like "Weapons feature extensively in science fiction". If a new article is produced in the same page space, then make no mistake, this article should have still been deleted; such a thing would be a wholly new creation. Mintrick (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that it needs a lot of work. I don't agree that there's nothing salvageable in it.  User:The Anome has already made quite a few improvements to it, and there's much more that can be done. JulesH (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, "weapons feature extensively in science fiction" is an almost identical concept to the first sentence in one of the sources I mentioned above; I think it was Prucher & Wolfe, although I'm not certain now, so is an example of some text of the original that could be kept. JulesH (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

- (At this point, a new version of the article was rewritten from scratch)
 * Rewrite, then keep. I originated this article in 2003, and although it has so far failed to come up to scratch by today's verifiability and sourcing standards, I think a proper article can be made out of it, as per the previous comment. I've made a start on a new version of the article, providing cites for the origination of each type of weapon in science fiction. At the moment, it's still a bag of text: I'll start structuring it into the shape of an article in a moment. -- The Anome (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've now done an initial rewrite: it's not a great article in its present form, but at least it's a start, and should now pass WP:V and WP:ATT. It now needs lots more cleanup, fact-checking and expansion. -- The Anome (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep subject to clean-up. Clearly significant topic. Original author and SF Project shoud be given a chance to address deficiencies before any action taken to remove article.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Something like this is better suited as a list than as a rambling essay. Mandsford (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Oh, come on, be reasonable: this rewrite has as yet only been in existence for a few hours. It's clearly about a notable subject, and there is substantial literature on the topic, and clear connections between the themes and ideas of science fiction weapons and real-world concerns. Might I suggest that you improve the text, rather than vote for its deletion because WP:IDONTLIKEIT?
 * Hmmm... did I use the word delete somewhere? I don't remember.  However, when it does get rewritten, it needs to be more to the point than it is now.  Mandsford (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And yes, there could be a rationale for a list of weapons in science fiction (there are, after all, huge numbers of the things, from the chainsword to the drillger), but the deeper concept of the unsettling effects of new weapons and kinds of warfare is so deeply woven into science fiction (consider: both the iconic science fiction modern science fiction films The Terminator and Blade Runner are based on the idea of animate weapons) that it needs a detailed article to review the considerable literature on the topic. (See also User:JulesH's comment above for more on the literature on this.)


 * See Talk:Weapons in science fiction for some ideas about how the current structure of the article might be improved. -- The Anome (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Article has undergone significant improvement, and now contains tons of sources. Great job by those who are working on it. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 00:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Shameless WikiProject plug -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 03:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- A notable topic that needs some cleanup. No problems that can be solved by deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep As Jules indicated, this can be improved. (Not that anyone really should have doubted it, as this is the core material of SF & there's an immense mount of material available) We do not delete articles that can be improved. Deletion is the last resort, for those that cannot. Even had it not been considerably rewritten by now, as long as sources can be shown for potential improvement, there is no reason to delete. We have no deadline. DGG (talk) 04:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and continue improving. I feel the general consensus here is that the article has notability and can be made encyclopedic, but is just stumbling over the best way to do it. This then becomes a matter for discussion and cooperation on the article's talk page and between editors with WP:CLEANUP and continued improvement. A deletion would not improve wiki. A better article will.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable topic and starting to get sources. Edward321 (talk) 15:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.   --  fr33k  man   -s-  15:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Stubbify - Nuke from above all the unsubstantiated OR generalizations and flowery language. But generally, keep it. Fixable. --EEMIV (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Its a good article, which I found interesting to read. It has sources.  It shows how bestselling science fiction novels and popular series have evolved the weapons used, and where the idea came from first.  I remember reading it months ago, and thought it a great article.   D r e a m Focus  18:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: This article is unencyclopaedic and proves that Wikipedia is mainly edited by teenage boys. However it seems well referenced, there's not as much OR and Synthesis as I expected, and I believe those bits can be trimmed out. As ever I support anyone going in there and removing the Synthesis. Ryan 4314   (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * SPLIT. Hopelessly broad, but covers some reasonable topics. The main issue here is synthesis, and we can easily resolve that by spitting this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I found the article both useful and well-sourced Vartanza (talk) 03:37, 17 February 2009 (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.