Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arm cannon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Delete (Besides, an article about arm cannons that mentions various Transformers, but neglects Megatron, is missing the friggin' point.) — Caknuck (talk) 07:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Arm cannon
Contested prod. An article on a non-notable neologism, composed entirely of synthesis/OR. The references are: a Square Enix character profile that doesn't mention "arm cannon"s, a Word document written by somebody with a yahoo email address, a Mega Man fansite, and an article by gamehiker.com - a rather amateurish-looking site whose main page doesn't work. Miremare 02:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Miremare 02:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete sources are no good. AnteaterZot (talk) 02:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete can't see this ever amounting to more then an orignal research essay. Ridernyc (talk) 02:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Mega Buster this junk. Delete JuJube (talk) 06:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Fin©™ 17:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - All of the above arguments are based on current surmountable WP:PROBLEMS of the article. There is a valid stub-size article in here. Topic is a recurring plot element in the science fiction genre. User:Krator (t c) 20:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I don't see how this could every be a good article; seems to be more an essay than anything else; and does not demonstrate that they are a valid topic which has been identified and covered by third parties. David Fuchs (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep, this article needs work granted but could turn into something good, don't condemn it to hell yet, it's not doing any harm at the moment. I recommended moving (not literally moving) the article away from a list style appearance, restricting the number of mentions on said list e.g we don't need 4 different types of Megaman there. Add the first appearance of an arm cannon. See if u can find someone a source of some scientist saying it's an impossible idea or whatever. An iconic picture of the most well known example would be good too (should be easy, probably on Commons). Get it linked to couple of projects n all, I presume arm connons are synonymous with comics or something so try there. Ryan4314 (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Not a compelling argument. JuJube (talk) 05:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- If you're gonna cite wikipedia policies at me, then might I remind you of the 1st policy on the policy list, WP:Ignore all rules, which says "Every policy, guideline or any other rule may be ignored if it hinders improving Wikipedia."
-
- Yes I know I said the golden words "not doing any harm", which gave you the opportunity to show off citing a policy. But that alone should not detract from all the other stuff I said, so for anyone else reading this I implore you not to listen to these catchy policy titles and instead consider letting this article be improved. Ryan4314 (talk) 06:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, let's ignore all rules. While we're at it, let's let vandals that say they do it to improve Wikipedia run amuck. Because after all, they really believe they're helping! And we should let them because of WP:IAR. Don't be ridiculous. JuJube (talk) 07:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Typical, you're still fixated on the catchy titles of policies instead of what they consist of; it says "may be ignored if it hinders improving Wikipedia". Why are you bringing up hypothetical arguments about vandalism, this is about an article being deleted? Ryan4314 (talk) 07:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Typical, you believe that because you like an article, it's good. (Note that I'm not wikilinking to anything now). Why are you bringing up policymongering when it has nothing to do with the growing consensus that this article is gonna go? I'm not responding to you anymore, as you evidently resort to childish ad hominems when you don't have a real argument. JuJube (talk) 07:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- I never said I liked this article, in fact I said; "but it could turn into something good", implying that it is bad. However I just want it improved instead of deleted. And as for your "growing consensus" the vote currently stands at 4-2, I'm hardly desperate. I will say though that it's rather childish for you to use a made-up word like "policymongering" (what is this? Google only gives 3 hits and mongering means promoting a negative thing, are u saying policies are bad?), try to start a grandiose hypothetical debate about wikipedia being overrun by vandals or something and then resorting to name-calling and running away instead of just giving sensible rebuttals. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ryan4314, this is a discussion, not a vote; it's arguments that count. I think it is very unlikely this can be improved, or expanded without further OR. Firstly, why is the term "arm cannon" being used? It's a non-proprietary term that has no notability or widespread use in itself, and has been chosen apparently at whim. Even the first source cited doesn't call the character's weapon an "arm cannon". We're getting a neologism that has apparently come from Metroid or Mega Man being applied to an original-research list of things that are ostensibly similar. Unless someone can provide a source to back any of this up, it's hopeless. Miremare 10:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Excellent, I'm glad about it not being a vote. I must admit that the title does seem to come straight from Metroid, also I had been thinking if this article survives this, that that name has gotta go. I understand what you mean about the notability of the term "Arm-Cannon", although I'm sure I have heard people use the term "Gun-Arm" before. I googled it and got 303,000 hits, as well as this webpage by one of the prop designers on Robocop3, they actually built a real working gun arm, with rockets n shit! As for etymology I can't find any examples earlier than "Shockwave " (a Transformer) in 1984, but like u said unless I can find a source saying this was the 1st ever appearence of a Gun-Arm it's classed as OR right?
- Also, not that I'm trying to be inflammatory so please please don't take offense, but if this is a discussion then I'd like to add something else in regards to the "sources are no good" and "Mega Buster this junk" comments above. WP:PROBLEM says comments like these, specifically "The article is rubbish" and "It's not referenced properly" should be avoided. It then goes on to say "even a poor article can be of benefit, and not so bad that Wikipedia is better off without it. That an article is poorly formatted, contains bad grammar, is lacking in certain areas, and so on are relatively minor problems and such articles can be of benefit even in the current state. Try to consider the article's potential for improvement. In the Wiki model, an article that is poor now can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws".
- Ryan4314, this is a discussion, not a vote; it's arguments that count. I think it is very unlikely this can be improved, or expanded without further OR. Firstly, why is the term "arm cannon" being used? It's a non-proprietary term that has no notability or widespread use in itself, and has been chosen apparently at whim. Even the first source cited doesn't call the character's weapon an "arm cannon". We're getting a neologism that has apparently come from Metroid or Mega Man being applied to an original-research list of things that are ostensibly similar. Unless someone can provide a source to back any of this up, it's hopeless. Miremare 10:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- I never said I liked this article, in fact I said; "but it could turn into something good", implying that it is bad. However I just want it improved instead of deleted. And as for your "growing consensus" the vote currently stands at 4-2, I'm hardly desperate. I will say though that it's rather childish for you to use a made-up word like "policymongering" (what is this? Google only gives 3 hits and mongering means promoting a negative thing, are u saying policies are bad?), try to start a grandiose hypothetical debate about wikipedia being overrun by vandals or something and then resorting to name-calling and running away instead of just giving sensible rebuttals. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Typical, you believe that because you like an article, it's good. (Note that I'm not wikilinking to anything now). Why are you bringing up policymongering when it has nothing to do with the growing consensus that this article is gonna go? I'm not responding to you anymore, as you evidently resort to childish ad hominems when you don't have a real argument. JuJube (talk) 07:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Typical, you're still fixated on the catchy titles of policies instead of what they consist of; it says "may be ignored if it hinders improving Wikipedia". Why are you bringing up hypothetical arguments about vandalism, this is about an article being deleted? Ryan4314 (talk) 07:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, let's ignore all rules. While we're at it, let's let vandals that say they do it to improve Wikipedia run amuck. Because after all, they really believe they're helping! And we should let them because of WP:IAR. Don't be ridiculous. JuJube (talk) 07:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes I know I said the golden words "not doing any harm", which gave you the opportunity to show off citing a policy. But that alone should not detract from all the other stuff I said, so for anyone else reading this I implore you not to listen to these catchy policy titles and instead consider letting this article be improved. Ryan4314 (talk) 06:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- "With that said, if an article is so bad that it is harmful in its current state, then deleting now, and possibly recreating it later, remains an option. If the subject is notable, but the current article is so blatantly biased that it's an embarrassment, or a blatant hoax where all the statements are wrong, then Wikipedia may indeed be better off without the article".
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- We're all familiar with why the "it's not harming anyone" comments should be avoided but the above policy says that "harmful" is stuff like being shamefully biased or a hoax, which this article is obviously neither. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- While that's true, original research is by it's very nature unverifiable, and therefore in breach of a core tenet of Wikipedia - to write only on what has already been covered by reliable secondary sources. I don't see that WP:PROBLEM applies here, as there doesn't seem to me to be any way in which these problems can be addressed... Really, once the OR and unreliable sources are stripped away there's nothing left other than "an arm cannon (or whatever it should be called) is a firearm attached to the arm", which is self-evident, but things like the functionality, or composition, or other properties of what is essentially a wildly differing fictional weapon absolutely needs a proper source to be included (what we currently have for that is a Word document containing a Metroid fan's essay on "arm cannon mechanics"), and even then cannot be said to be true of all the examples listed. The fact that a character has an gun attached to their arm is of course worthy of mention in the article on the character in question, but without someone reliable actually having written on this subject, we don't have the basis for an article. Miremare 12:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Delete. If the individual character has one, it could be mentioned, but "Arm cannon" is pretty self-explanatory. J-ſtanTalkContribs 22:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Gun arms/arm cannons/whatever need to be the subject of WP:RS reliable sources in order to establish notability. It's one of countless fantasy/sci-fi facets which get repeated but are no more than the sum of their parts. Having a list of 'he's got one, she's got one' isn't an encyclopedia article, it adds nothing to individual descriptions of the weapons when writing about the characters. Someone another (talk) 02:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- 'Keep a frequently used weapon, and there are sufficient web sources. RSs is flexible , and so RSs can be used when appropriate for this sort of content,. if any of the individual items are challenged, they can be documented from reviews and such.The argument that some of the uses aren't notable is met because they are all from notable fames, notable enough for WP. The content has to be relevant , not notable. The article subject as a whole is what needs to be notable. DGG (talk) 10:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - if one were to strip the article of original research, you would be left with "Arm cannon is a name given to some video game weapons." Marasmusine (talk) 13:58, 9 December 2007 (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.
