Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wave motion gun

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. W.marsh 18:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wave motion gun

Wave motion gun (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

• Delete - fails WP:PLOT as having no out-of-universe content or context. 90% of the article is irredeemable original research as no reliable sources identify any of the "examples of similar weapons" as "wave motion guns" so inclusion is based entirely on the subjective POV of the editor who adds it. Space_Battleship_Yamato_(spaceship)#Weaponry_.2F_defences more than adequately covers the concept as it relates to the actual series so there's no need to merge any of this. Otto4711 15:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is actually describes an important element found in many science fiction anime series. I'm not familiar with the subject so I don't know if there is a more generic term for such a "super weapon" concept. This can be possible expanded to convey the literary significance of this and why it is so common. --Polaron | Talk 17:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - ... which would make it original research, quite beyond the fact that "wave motion gun" is specific to Space Battleship Yamato and is by no means (as Polaron speculates) a commonly-applied generic term for SF fictional superweapons. Reliable sources to the contrary are a prerequisite for saving this mishmash of an article, and there isn't a single one.  RGTraynor  18:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• I realize the title is not necessarily appropriate but the article is currently written as describing the commonly used concept in scifi anime of a superweapon that leaves the user vulnerable in the aftermath of using it. This debate is whether an article on this concept is worthy of inclusion or not. We can have a debate about titles later if the article survives. --Polaron | Talk 18:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Great. Do you have any reliable sources discussing the phenomenon? Even presuming the title was recognized generically - which it is not - to avoid violating WP:SYN and WP:OR, the article would need those, not merely a haphazard list of every Big Damn Superweapon in an anime series, movie, SF book or video game, whether or not they actually fit the premise.  RGTraynor  23:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment "wave motion gun" is a commonly-applied generic term for SF fictional superweapons in anime and manga. Of course, that only matters if proper sources can be found. Edward321 04:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

*Comment: Just for yucks, I decided to Google the term, specifically excluding sites using the words "Yamato," "Blazers" (to omit Star Blazers) and "lyrics," because most remaining hits refer to a song by that name, to gauge if the term is widely used in SF circles outside of SBY. I get 344 hits. [1].  RGTraynor  08:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

*Commment Wouldn't the song help establish notability? Edward321 16:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If anyone wanted to write a Wave Motion Gun (song) article, no doubt. For establishing anything other than some members of an obscure band are SBY fanboys, probably not.  RGTraynor  18:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy 03:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete even if we assume good faith, there are no primary or secondary sources to provide evidence that this is not OR.--Gavin Collins 15:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and redirect The wave motion gun is a likely enough search target, given that it's even had its own song (Marcy Playground's Wave Motion Gun), but there's no reason for this element of Space Battleship Yamato to have its own article, and the rest of the content of the article is clearly OR. -Harmil 16:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: That's right, we must delete or merge this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and redirect per Harmil. Rray 02:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Harmil. Edward321 03:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Harmil. Noroton 19:52, 10 November 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.