Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weapons in science fiction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ddawkins73 (talk | contribs) at 19:21, 15 February 2009 (Weapons in science fiction). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Weapons in science fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article is a bunch of original, meaningless generalities and fluff. Every assertion is preempted by "tend", "may", or "generally". This article contains no real information, and I can't imagine that anyone would get anything out of it. It's hard to fault anyone for this; the concept is so ridiculously broad that any generalizations would necessarily be wildly inaccurate.

For those looking for a specific reason: Violates WP:OR and WP:NOTE. Mintrick (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I think it might be possible for there to be an article around this general topic (e.g. "Views of Weaponry by Futurists" etc) but such an article would have to be about compiling sociology or theoretical engineering research, citing published scholarly works on those subjects. This is very much NOT such an article. This strikes me most under the heading of Wikipedia is not for things made up one day as it's clearly original research from beginning to end. Rayguns have their own article, as to several other objects and topics linked in this arbitrary compilation, so no one is losing information by deleting this. -Markeer 17:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems like WP:OR to me, and is unsourced. As a topic, it's a bit random/haphazard. I could see wikipedia having a page on this topic--if and only if there are multiple quality sources that have written specifically about the topic as a whole as a topic in and of itself--and not just mentioned various weapons in science fiction in isolation. Cazort (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unfortunately, the topic does not seem to be notable. This is OR, synthesis. I can't find sources to justify it as a topic :( ...I was going to have a go at shaping this article up myself. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]