Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phased plasma gun

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 to Outstanding elements of Babylon 5. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 05:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Phased plasma gun

Phased plasma gun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD was removed with no rationale. Article is entirely non-notable WP:FANCRUFT that fails WP:NOTPLOT. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Merge to Outstanding elements of Babylon 5, which is a summary for unique, yet not individual notable fictional elements from the series. Jclemens (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Jclemens:Nothing about that article shows that it's anything besides WP:LISTCRUFT as well. I count a grand total of zero reliable, secondary sources in it. It will probably end up being AfD at some point too._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The lack of current sources doesn't mean sources don't exist. Sources likely exist to show PPG meets GNG, and I have the resources in my personal library to demonstrate that, but 1) it's not the best thing to have as a standalone article, in my opinion, and 2) Regardless of whether PPD could be defended as meeting GNG or not, the larger article is certainly more defensible. Jclemens (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I find it doubtful that minor fictional cruft such as that article would be enyclopedic, even as a whole, it seems more like what you'd put in Wikia. But if it truly is then I would recommend sourcing it to back up your argument._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

If we had more editors who would improve existing articles, I would spend more time doing so, instead of only putting out fires. Right now, fixing up low-interest fictional elements articles isn't a huge priority: They're harmless, and as long as WP:ATD is followed by redirecting or merging NN stuff instead of deleting it, there's not too much risk. Jclemens (talk) 04:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep The topic is notable; for example, see A Dream Given Form. Andrew D. (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
• Merge as above. A Google Books search turns up a number of references, but these all appear to be fictional discussions of a weapon that has never existed and which doesn't appear to have enough non-trivial discussion in those sources to warrant a standalone article. Probably. KDS4444 ^(talk) 11:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Merge to Outstanding elements of Babylon 5, just like Jclemens said. The search on that page shows a ton of references. I think after a merge the articles future could be a "Cross the bridge when we get there".AmericanAir88 (talk) 15:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment -- Isn't this the same discussion we had yesterday about Pulse rifles? Rhadow (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete. I love B5, but most of this type of stuff belongs on B5 wikia, not here. This was a minor prop in the show, with zero notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Note that the above editor has nominated the merge target, Outstanding elements of Babylon 5, at Articles for Deletion during this process. This creates an unusual, possibly undefined situation if this is selected for merge to that article, which is subsequently deleted. Jclemens (talk) 18:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I think it's pretty clear that if that article gets deleted, there is no realistic merge target, so this article should also be deleted as well._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
      • It's just as obvious to me that a merge close here would trump a delete close there, as it would modify the article under consideration in the middle of a discussion. But like I said, an undefined situation. Jclemens (talk) 01:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Redirect to Outstanding elements of Babylon 5; not independently notable. If the target article survives AfD then great; if not, the redirect would be deleted. I would oppose a "Merge" or a "Keep" outcome; this is a minor prop and a stand-alone article is unneeded. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Note I've added two RS'es, removed much of the excess plot detail, and so the topic is arguably demonstrably notable in its own right. Regardless, I remain convinced that a merger is the optimum outcome. Note that these edits fundamentally change the basis on which the above delete !voters have opined, and further demonstrate that there is nothing wrong with the article which cannot be remedied through the normal editing process; those preferring an alternative other than merging are encouraged to review the improved article and restate an objection to such a merge, if it stands in the face of this improvement. Jclemens (talk) 05:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Merge to Outstanding elements of Babylon 5 or any split of that article per Jclemens. This probably doesn't need it's own article, but should be part of some article about the B5 mythos ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Redirect/Merge to Outstanding elements of Babylon 5. Not independently notable z'L3X1 (distænt write) 01:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947^{(c) (m)} 04:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Merge with article Babylon 5 - this is just one component from this television series and it does not really have to have its own article. Vorbee (talk) 07:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep or merge per Jclemens. BOZ (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2017 (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.