Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doomsday devices in popular culture
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Doomsday devices in popular culture
This is simply a trivial dumping ground for any doomsday device reference in popular culture. RobJ1981 (talk) 10:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete or weak partial merge There are so many films with doomsday as its main theme (see Doomsday film), and even more with a doomsday device, that this list becomes filled with indiscriminate plot summaries (WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#PLOT). A thorough discussion of doomsday devices can take place at Doomsday device, which is still rather stubbish. – sgeureka t•c 12:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —Lenticel (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete for the same reasons as getting rid of the sonic weapon in pop culture thing. Just a huge collection of trivia whose relevant information is better contained in the appropriate articles. The list is incomplete (and will always be incomplete because of its relatively indiscriminate nature) not to mention many of the items are entirely non-notable Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete in favor of a category, my standard answer for this. If a page for the topic exists, put it in a category; no mess, no fuss. But, as it stands now, it's an unsourced list. Frank | talk 13:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep -
I'd be surprised if this weren't covered in some independent sci-fi compendium.FWIW, I do now remember reading about the rise of this device in film paralleling the development of the atomic bomb and the obvious connections. I will get the ref. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC) - Keep as Casliber says, there will be no problem finding sources. I am really puzzled by the argument that because there are many works that use the theme, the theme is not suitable for an article. I'd think it exactly the other way around. (Come to think of it, the argument is also used the other way around. Makes no sense either way. if there's enough to right an article, the use of any theme in notable works is a suitable encyclopedic subject. If notable artists use it, they know what they're doing.) I am almost equally puzzled by the reappearance of some other arguments. Indiscriminate does not mean difficult to define, but covering everything in a conceivable group without consideration of importance--the consideration here is appearance in a notable work, which is defined as for any other list--having a Wikipedia article or being substantially covered in one. Next, that a list has some inappropriate items -- that is a reason for editing not deletion--just as with any article. If we deleted every article that had something inappropriate in it, we'd be down to the FAs. A list does not have to be complete--I wonder where anyone got the idea; Wikipedia is not complete in any topic, and never will be. (And if it were, people would then start saying indiscriminate again.) And the favorite argument that it belongs in a category instead is opposed by the consensus that agreed on WP:list -- there is no reason not to have both--a category has the advantage of being built automatically, a list of being able to give some actual information about the use. It's not just the fact of the use, but the context and the role in the work--you can't do that with a category. DGG (talk) 00:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Article needed to be sorted, and a couple of nonnotable entried removed, but it looks a lot better now. Doomsday film should probably be merged into this article. --NickPenguin(contribs) 01:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: Indiscriminate collection of some plot summary. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
