Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planet killer

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 no consensus. Although the keep recommendations are in the majority, some have weaker (or nonexistent) rationales. The argument that this is original research is compelling, but it has been argued that this topic is indeed verifiable and notable, and possibility of finding sources seems at least plausible. However, the article is clearly unacceptable in its current state, and, if not improved, could be renominated for deletion in a few months or so. — TKD::Talk 06:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Planet killer

Planet killer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Total original research, from premise to execution. Takes a contrived term ("Planet killer") and then sets about thinking up all the times that a planet has ever been destroyed in the entire history of speculative fiction. wikipediatrix 01:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Rename, prune, rewrite as List of fictional weapons of mass destruction or similar. Wl219 01:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as unsourced OR. Dbromage [Talk] 03:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as OR. - Shudde talk 03:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep without renaming and add sources - Planet Killer is the term i've heard the most for Deathstar-like-devices. I think it's reasonable to demand sources for the article, at the moment there are none but nno real effort has been made to push for them (an unreferenced tag was added today). As it goes with these things that's probably going to be easy for the specifics (individual planet killers) and an awful lot harder for the generalitys (showing planet killers in general to be a notable subject), but it shouldn't be impossible. Artw 03:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per lack of notability for this term. One fan site, which does not appear to be a reliable source, is not enough to keep this article Corpx 04:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Find a source establishing the widespread usage of the term is definately priority umber one for sourcing the article. Paradoxically that's a little tricky due to the widespread usage of the term, which swamps internet searches for it with noise. Artw 05:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll gladly change my vote if you can find these sources Corpx 15:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • And I completely understand that it won't be taken as read that they do exist until they are found. Artw 16:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Importance should be deemed by coverage in reliable sources Corpx 05:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Google Scholar has a mere 6 results for the term, two of which (the Ender's Game and the Cold War Pop Culture ones) are science-fiction related. I haven't looked closely enough to see whether they're non-trivial enough for Wikipedia's purposes but they're a place to start. (Um, the first is open access, the second will depend on whether your library subscribes. It's getting late here but if no-one else follows these up in a couple of days I'll take another look.) --Zeborah 09:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Why on Earth would you expect coverage in Google scholar, to the exclusion of all other available sources? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

--::Type in "planet killer" (with speech marks) in normal Google and you'll get 25,600 results. Browsing through just the first few pages of results I'm seeing stuff on Star Trek, Babylon 5 and Star Wars, and I know for a fact that the phrase is used in the computer game Supreme Commander as well - characters say something along the lines of "The UEF are constructing a planet killer, they are calling it Black Sun." So the term planet killer does seem a well-known and widely used term for devices that destroy planets. The term "superweapon" is sometimes used, but that's more associated with powerful attacks in computer games like nuclear missiles or death rays from space, and so superweapon basically just means "weapon of mass destruction". But Planet Killer, on the other hand, means exactly what it says - it kills a whole planet. Since planet killers (both the concept and the actual name) appear in a number of different examples of science fiction, it seems notable enough to me. -- 14:22, 28 August 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.232.223 (talk)

Comment. Aren't most of these uses of "planet killer" from Babylon 5, where the term is per se used? The concept perhaps merits an article, but I wonder if "planet killer" isn't the most neutral name that could be chosen. RandomCritic 15:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Babylon 5 may use it and have the most nerdcruft regarding it online, but Star Trek got there first with "The Doomsday machine". The Googel search brings up enough evidence of it's generic use, but what really need to be found if the article is to be kept is a reference to that generic use. Recent experience in trying to find sources for this kind of thing has taught me that paper sources are likely to be more fruitfull that online ones, but you'll haver ot be a little patient as that's somewhat timeconsuming. Artw 16:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. M.V.E.i. 15:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - The term itself is probably not the best, so maybe a new name, but the concept on how to destroy/exterminate a planet is useful information (escpecially when having an argument). Quite a number of notable articles link to it - Fosnez 10:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Although it would actually be very difficult to destroy a large sphere, it's a science fiction convention that ranks up there with faster than light travel and universal translation devices that make everyone speak English. 65.207.127.12 00:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but expand and source. A giant meteorite can be a planet killer and (a couple of bad movies notwithstanding) isn't necessarily sci-fi. Thin Arthur 05:53, 30 August 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.