Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arm Cannon

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 of the debate was keep. – Alphax ^τεχ 03:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arm Cannon

"An arm cannon is an arm that is a cannon. Several characters with arm cannons are foo, bar, and foobar." An essentially content-free tautology, with a list of random, more-or-less unrelated fictional characters with gun arms. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to abstain, considering the rewrite. I'm not sure if this is an encyclopedic topic, but it's no longer in dire need of deletion. (If someone is counting votes, this is an abstention.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Although worthy of an article if it was well researched and had good info, this is certainly not it. Delete until someone comes along and actually puts effort into it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mboverload (talk • contribs) 22:25, May 10, 2006.
• Keep: Yeah it needs work, but it's not something that should be deleted. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Why shouldn't it be deleted? I'm willing to be convinced, but I don't see any reasoning, just an assertion of disagreement. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.170.224.208 (talk • contribs).
• Delete- technically not a tautology (it must be clarified whether this is a cannon that is an arm, or a cannon that fires arms) but it's stupid nonetheless. Reyk _YO! 07:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Best mental image ever! - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 08:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC) Keep after rewrite. It explains well what the gadget is to the uninitiated. And with *4* inline refs to boot. o_O Kimchi.sg 16:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. "What in the hell did you trade Jay Buhner for? He had 30 home runs, over 100 RBI's last year. He's got a rocket for an arm. You don't know what the hell you're doin'!" -- GWO
• Delete although I'm not sure what the article is. For sure collecting all that info and lumping it together is OR at best. Kevin 11:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete uncited nonsense Just zis Guy you know? 14:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep rewritten version. Still too lose a topic for a proper article, IMO, but not a crap one any more. Just zis Guy you know? 19:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with List of characters with arm cannons. Jimpartame 15:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Smurrayinchester's great rewriting job has changed my mind. Keep. Jimpartame 20:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment- I've rewritten the article to be less of a list and more of an explanation of the arm cannon (incidently, after this AFD ends, if it is not deleted, it should be moved to Arm cannon). smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 20:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep following an excellent rewrite. It might also be worth talking about the use of Wii as a real 'arm cannon' ([1]). Ziggurat 22:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the post-rewrite version. Well done. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep post-revision. And comment - the second section of List of characters with arm cannons has to be one of the best things I've seen today. Confusing Manifestation 01:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment can we have some sources for this info? Otherwise it smacks of a cross between original research and dicdef. Fagstein 20:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • What claims in the article do you think need to be sourced? Jimpartame 22:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • All of them. Verifiability is not optional. Fagstein 22:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
      • It doesn't make sense to say that all of the claims in the article need to have sources added, since many of them already have sources. For instance, the claim that some arm cannons in fiction are portrayed as firing bullets or shells is supported by the example of Barret Wallace from Final Fantasy VII. If you have any specific concerns about verifiability, feel free to share them. Jimpartame 22:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Agreed, This would seem to just be a grandstanding abuse of the reference policy. There are no direct assertations made. If you are going to tell me we need a reference to an independent work stating that such and such had an arm cannon in it and it fired x type of ammunition, its a little bit neurotic and quite a leap. Unless you can mark a specific claim that needs citation, I see no reason to even consider this.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 03:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
        • There are a lot of weasel words like "tend to", "often", "can also" etc., simply because the article doesn't have a single reference (so it doesn't really say anything about arm cannons, except that they're cannons around the arm area). I can edit if you like, but that would drop the article down to dicdef level. Fagstein 03:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
          • The article references numerous works of fiction involving arm cannons. I explained to you the reference to Final Fantasy VII, for example. Instead of cutting out the parts you feel are under-referenced, why not tell us what those parts are? Which claims do you want references added for? Jimpartame 04:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
            • Like I said, everything needs a source. The problem here is that we're writing an article about a fictional weapon in general, however we only have wildly different specific examples to go on. All we can say for certain about "arm cannon" is that it's a cannon around the arm area. Everything else, from what they shoot to what they're made of to how they function differs depending on the particular fictional case. We would probably have to model this after the raygun article, which has some history and a listing of fictions it appears in, but has nothing technical. Fagstein 05:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
              • I'll try to explain this once more: The article has sources. Metroid, Teen Titans, Mega Man, etc. If there is a claim made in the article that you think needs to be better supported with references, tell us what that particular claim is. Please be specific. Just saying "everything" is nonsensical, since not everything in the article is unsourced. Jimpartame 05:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
              • Foolishness. When writing about a videogame, do you need a source to prove that it happened? No, thats what the game is there fore the same goes for a movie and the same in this case. Why don't you spend time sourcing articles that REALLY need it, such as ones that actually cite claims made without providing evidence. Lords knows there are more Citation Needed tags around than one could shake a stick at, and plenty of nonsense without these tags that need them. In any case this discussion belongs on the article talk page, as its getting rather long (or at least continue it on the project talk page.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 06:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
    • It's now referenced externally, as well as internally. There's a surprising amount about Metroid & Mega Man physics on the web, buried among the fanfics. Incidently, the use of "some" and "most" aren't weasel words in this context. It is indeed true that "some" arm cannons shoot bullets, but "most" shoot energy beams, and "can also" interface with computers, and the references added back this up. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 08:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I think it's kind of silly saying that "Many times X is Y, but X can be also by not Y" since that tells me nothing about X. That said, I've gotten references as asked. Keep. Fagstein 19:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keeep per the rewrite. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 03:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep after rewrite. Robert 03:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Rename. I don't think that "arm cannon" is really the best name here; for instance, Google gives about as many hits for "gun arm" as it does for "arm cannon". -Sean Curtin 05:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, but the more notable references to it (Megaman and metroid most likely) along with the majority of other works that refer to it call it an ARM cannon or something along those lines. Using google search results to gague notability and accuracy is at best an extremely flawed concept. You really have to look at individual uses.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 05:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - notable aspect of video game character community, competent summary after rewrite, includes sources and nice presentation. -Zero^Talk 22:11, 14 May 2006 (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.