Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional pulse rifles

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. Unanimous consensus to not keep as a stand-alone article. There were some suggestions made to merge this per WP:ATD, but (in addition to being in the numerical minority), there are some cogent arguments why a merge would not be a good idea. So, going with a straight delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional pulse rifles

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is pure listcruft, as there is nothing to indicate the topic of fictional pulse rifles in particular is notable, as compared to fictional weapons in general. It's also just a collection of unreferenced trivia. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 15:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 15:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 15:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment toss this into the same bin with the other manifold articles about fictional weapons. Rhadow (talk)
Merge into Weapons in science fiction per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure what part of the article you think is acceptable for merging. There are no reliable sources in the entire article, the majority violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Merging it with an article which does have RS would solve the WP:INDISCRIMINATE issue of not providing encyclopedic context to the content in this current article. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not seeing much benefit to the article - it's a future buzzword that sounds cool so it's been used a bunch of places but other than that there's no real unifying content. There's even a few random future weapons that aren't called a pulse-whatever in there. Artw (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is TVTropes style material. None of the list entries (which would be weapons, not the video games they are from) have their own page. No content is worth merging. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per WP:ATD-M. Contra Zxcvbnm, merging into a notable article eliminates the need for individual elements to be RS'ed as long as the whole is. WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB cover the use of such sources quite thoroughly. Jclemens (talk) 02:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATD-M is in this case overruled by WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It's contingent on the content in the article being suitable for Wikipedia, and it's not a free license to keep indiscriminate content. If the content was suitable but not individually notable that would be another story._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. This is not an indiscriminate list, it's an overly discriminate list, but you're far from being the only person to make this mistake. If you disagree with me, please list which of the clauses of WP:INDISCRIMINATE actually applies here. Jclemens (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:IPCV - "Exhaustive, indiscriminate lists are discouraged". I guess it might just fall under "indiscriminate" the word, rather than "indiscriminate" the policy though._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IPCV is an essay, neither guideline nor policy. WP:INDISCRIMINATE is policy. By misquoting it, you've badly overstated the case for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 09:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I realized that WP:INDISCRIMINATE is linked to in WP:LISTCRUFT with regards to miscellany, meaning that it is a legitimate guideline/policy to use when discussing lists. If you think it's unrelated then perhaps you should bring it up and start a debate at the talk page of WP:LISTCRUFT._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An essay pointing to a policy does not automatically mean that policy is relevant to the topic of that essay. In this case however, the first point at WP:INDISCRIMINATE does say that encyclopedic context should be provided via RS for fictional plot elements. However, that would easily be fixed in this case by directing it to a parent topic article with RS. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Isn't this the same discussion as Phased plasma gun? Rhadow (talk) 17:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Similar but different. That is one particular type of weapon from one moderate-sized fictional franchise, this is a list of weapons from various franchises having the same name in common. Jclemens (talk) 01:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- this is listcruft that properly belongs on wikia or TvTropes. I've been unable to identify any content worth merging, or any potential target that would be improved by including any of this. Reyk _YO! 06:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. FanORcruft. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to raygun, which seems to be the catch-all Wikipedia article for energy-based sci-fi weaponry. Pulse rifles are some of the most recognizable weapons in sci-fi, [1] so the content is worth preserving somewhere. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That might be true, if the definition of "pulse rifle" wasn't so vague. One pulse rifle in one sci-fi work could be completely diffrent in mechanics and usage, to the point where the words are just nonsense technobabble. Putting it in raygun would simply expand the amount of original research already there with even more vague original research._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't know what you'd specifically merge, or into what article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- It is simply illiterate to use the word research where Phased plasma gun, Pulse rifle, or Raygun is concerned. The definition of research is "the systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions." There are no facts to be discovered about fictional weapons in TV and movies. They are figments of the writers' room imagination. I understand it is fun to read and watch and speculate about these weapons, but the result is not encyclopedic. In college, a list of rayguns would get you kicked out of the class. You could probably get an A if you could relate rayguns in contemporary science fiction to research efforts in the Reagan administration, in relation to the Cold War space race. Rhadow (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2017 (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.