Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rayguns in fiction

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 Redirect. I won't merge the table but it is available in the history of the redirect: editors of Raygun are in a better position than I am to pick and choose significant examples. Pascal.Tesson 16:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rayguns in fiction

Rayguns in fiction (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Trivia collection, unacceptable per WP:FIVE --Eyrian 15:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• See existing discussion in Talk:Raygun#Deletion of the list of fictional rayguns?, including about whether it is trivia or not. Anthony Appleyard 15:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Raygun. Nominator is in the midst of an edit war regarding this material. He excised the material from that article, created the nominated article and nominated it for deletion. While I agree that the material is in all likelihood not suited for Wikipedia, I do not like the actions taken by the nominator regarding it, which is a subversion of the ongoing process surrounding the main article. Otto4711 15:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• These articles are frequently spun-off when they grow too large. Since this list overshadowed the rest of the article by a significant amount, it needed to be moved. I only regret I didn't realize that sooner. --Eyrian 15:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oh come now. You know as well as I do you spun the article off for no reason other than nominating it for deletion. Otto4711 15:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• I suppose that's a matter of perspective. It needed to be spun off. And in its spun-off state, it's a ready candidate for deletion. My intention is irrelevant. Even if it's not deleted, it should still be in a separate article. --Eyrian 15:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

wouldn't it have been more direct to argue in the article for deletion of the material? DGG (talk) 01:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• I want a binding resolution. I know from my past dealings that that will require an official decision. --Eyrian 01:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not comfortable participating in an AfD for a 3-minute-old artilce while there's a mediation ongoing.Canuckle 21:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete what exactly is a Raygun? Who set the definition on what is and what's not a ray gun? I think its original research to classify many of the things on the list. This would also be a list of loosely associated topics Corpx 15:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• The general opinion in sci-fi fans is that any fictional gun that fires a beam of radiation or a beam of atomic-sized or smaller particles, is a raygun. There is no original research here. It could equally be said that an article about Aquila-genus eagles is original research because its author must decide about 3 moot points about species division. Anthony Appleyard 15:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• General opinion according to whom? --Eyrian 15:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• I think the raygun article could also be up for deletion, because of a lack of "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term." (WP:NEO) Corpx 15:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• It certainly currently lacks sources, but it documents a notable phenomenon. I don't really think the entire article should be axed. Not that I'd be particularly inspired to support either option.--Eyrian 15:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete - I see no value in this list; it gives no context. Rayguns were a staple of classic SF (actually, I primarily associate the term with classic SF, not modern), so a few examples might be suitable for an article to show how it went from something that the author described in great detail (as was done in the Lensman series, which isn't even listed) to something taken for granted. --Jamoche 17:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• SMERGE Merge earliest and most notable examples. such as Edison's 1898 "disintegrator raygun (1898)" used against the Martians and the "heat ray 1898" from War of the Worlds. Most recent references are an indiscriminate list. Edison 20:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Nice presentation with a table which is different a bit from the other in fiction/IPC or references in articles, but it does not remove the fact that it is trivia-filled. Some merge can be done though.--JForget 22:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Even those who want to delete it admit that some of the content is notable. that's enough reason to keep the article, and edit. DGG (talk) 01:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge. Raygun has plenty of room for select examples. Clarityfiend 06:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Raygun and move this list to a subpage of its talk page so that useful information from it can be extracted into the main article. There is some content that should be merged into the main article here, because it provides useful context that that article lacks. But this shouldn't just be a "paste in a section of the main article" job. The list we have at present serves no real purpose, and a much better treatment would be to highlight a few examples (no more than 3 or 4) in detail in the main article. JulesH 14:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unverifiable. All of the instances can be referenced to the works from which they came. But if there aren't reliable secondary sources about fictional rayguns, then they don't belong on Wikipedia. 17Drew 04:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep From Wikipedia: Deletion Process. "Wikipedia editors may find articles, images, or other pages that they believe should be deleted, and raise these concerns in various deletion forums. Administrators determine consensus and examine policy to determine if there is sufficient justification for their removal from Wikipedia."

Eyrian, you are an administrator. However, you appear to have been one of the most prolific nominators this week, with at least 10 nominations that I count on "_____ in popular culture" articles today. Not an uncivil observation. In this debate, other editors have suggested that you created this article as a spinoff and that it was nominated for deletion three minutes later; and that this was done while mediation going on over a similar article. In addition, you nominated the article about Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy in popular culture two days after the previous debate on it was closed. Are the administrators supposed to take an active role in nominating articles for deletion? Apparently, I'm not the only one who is getting tired of all the debates about this species of article. Mandsford 02:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• One's status should have no bearing on the nominations. It would be one thing if he was closing these AFDs with a prejudice and against consensus, but I see no harm in him making nominations. Corpx 03:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge - into raygun article. --Philip Laurence 08:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, do not merge. This is yet another useless trivia collection. Merging it into the main raygun article would clutter that article, which isn't needed. RobJ1981 05:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I like the idea but the table is all over the place. Might be useful to students of sci-fi if there was more focus on types of beams ex. laser, particle accelerator, etc, in a more uniform table, and less text about scenarios where they are used. Squidfryerchef 05:31, 2 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.