Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Star Wars ship-mounted weapons

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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Wars ship-mounted weapons

In-universe plot summary and trivia. No assertion of real-world notability, nor any mention of real-world development, critical response, etc. Footnoted references only substantiate elements of plot summary, and all the reference materials listed provide only in-universe "history" and make-believe "technical information" -- again, nothing for an out-of-universe encyclopedic treatment. Most of the content appears simply to be original research and fan speculation. --EEMIV (talk) 09:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 09:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I fully agree with the nomination, but I think that it would be possible to save this article by chopping out all the OR and using the various Star Wars handbooks and similar as references. I've tagged the article for rescue, but deleting the article as it stands would be no great loss. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't official Star Wars books count as primary sources? TJ Spyke 10:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Possibly, but what else is available? If its not written in an in-universe style the article could be OK. --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 10:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cheers, L A X 22:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopaedic fancruft with no real-world notability. Terraxos (talk) 03:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article should be improved so that it is written from a less in-universe standpoint; for instance, the Special Effects aspects of these beam weapons. This has already been addressed in the section on lasers (I suppose the nominator hasn't bothered to read that far), where there is a mention of how Star Wars lasers are depicted differently from real-world lasers. As a matter of fact, two of these weapon types are dramatizations of real world devices currently in development, i.e. lasers and mass drivers. Does that answer the nom's concern about real-world development? The fictional weapons listed here are notable, both in the context of Sci-Fi and once again in SFX; Star Wars as a movie has made significant advances in special effects, most especially as regards depiction of space battles. IMO, the article needs rewriting (and perhaps renaming, dropping the "List of") to accent these aspects, not deletion. Freederick (talk) 13:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The bit about discrepancies and whatnot is uncited original research. Can anyone cite a connection between real-world lasers and mass drivers? Did one influence the other? If anyone wants to write an article on the notable and verifiable topic of Special effects in Star Wars, then go for it. But this clump of material here? It's OR, speculation, and general cruft. --EEMIV (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless notability can be established through multiple reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Reliable sources might exist.</kidding> Delete as non-encyclopedic and not-even-potentially-encyclopedic. User:Dorftrottel 13:03, January 29, 2008
Keep. Encyclopedic material that satisfies Wikipedia:Lists. Article is well-organized and concerns verifiable elements of a notable fictional universe. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is that verification? --EEMIV (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Watch or read any of the mediums in which these ships appear. See also the article's reference section. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Books and movies are inappropriate primary sources that allow only for plot summary at best, original research at worst. The cited references, too, provide only in-universe material. This article wholly lacks reliable sources. --EEMIV (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The fact remains that the article features published reliable sources. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - It does not feature one single third-party reliable secondary source. Not one. User:Dorftrottel 03:23, January 30, 2008
        This source looks fairly reliable and is not about plot. Also, the History Channel had a special on Star Wars tech, which if memory serves me correct did address weapons on the space vehicles/stations and their weaponary. See here for more. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The "The New Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology, Revised Edition (Star Wars)" is not a third-party source by any stretch of imagination. You see, "third-party" doesn't mean it's not about the plot. It means it predominantly discusses things from a real world perspective, which this in-universe fan-oriented book does not. FWIW, your second example appears far more interesting. "through the eyes of cold hard science". Any chance to get a copy and evaluate it further? User:Dorftrottel 03:44, January 30, 2008
        They tend to replay History Channel shows relatively frequently, and I believe you can order a copy. If you are unwilling to do so, then you may want to check with members in the Star Wars wikiproject to see if anyone has a copy and would be willing to use it as a source. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, since you brought it up, why don't you do it? User:Dorftrottel 05:36, January 30, 2008
        I'm willing to keep an eye out myself for the special and I'll notify the Star Wars wikiproject of the discussion, but article improvement really should be a team effort. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real world context provided, fails WP:PLOT. This article is a derived work from the films and can not be released under GFPL. Taemyr (talk) 13:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable elements of a fictional universe, extremely doubtful reliable secondary sources have ever devoted significant coverage to anything or the list. Clear failure WP:NOT#PLOT since there is no real-world context. Doctorfluffy (talk) 21:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this plot summary has such a heavy in universe perspective as to have little encyclopedic value. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's not a plot summary. But it is a presentation of background material from a fictional universe. It's a derivative work and violates U.S. copyright law. The Transhumanist 22:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.