Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Equipment of the Colonial Marines

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. Looks like a massive copyvio... Majorly (hot!) 20:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Equipment of the Colonial Marines

Nominating as per previous discussions on lists of fictional weapons such as those found in video games such as Battlefield2142, I am suggesting the same logic should apply here - WP:NOT. anything worth saving can be summed up on the main article in a couple of paragraphs. Fredrick day 13:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was thinking of nominating this page myself. This page is largely a copy right violation from the Aliens: Colonial Marines Technical Manual. There is no real world context for these items because things like the HIMAT missle is only mentioned in one section of one book and are not significant in any way outside of one interpretation of a fictional universe. --Daniel J. Leivick 17:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As non-notable information. Interesting to read, but doesn't really have any value in an encyclopedia. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 18:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I would prefer this to be kept, and somewhat dispute the copyvio comment (its still a very small amount of text compared to the book, and if it isn't in the same words...). However, I see some validity in your arguments. Can I ask that the person(s) proposing to delete this at least copy over the outline of the content to the article for the sourcebook? MadMaxDog 13:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: You will probably succeed in getting this deleted. However, would your argument not also apply to the Half-Life 2 weapon lists? Those are in some ways worse sourced - but you probably wouldn't be able to get them deleted for the outcry! By then deleting articles like this one, we end up only deleting less known stuff (okay, Aliens is not less-known, but this sourcebook is), while the big ticket stuff gets extra protection by its popularity. Seems unfair to me. But then I'd prefer both to stay. 13:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

What's the policy-based reason for keeping it? ILIKEIT seems to what you are saying? --Fredrick day 13:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whats wrong with saying "I like it"? That is a good reason for including it in an Encyclopedia. 95% of Wikipedia use is recreational (my guess), so people saying "I like it!" is our main reason for an article. I am saying that the positive factors should be weighed against the negative ones, and that such an article need not be unsalvageable acc. to Wikipedia policies. MadMaxDog 13:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On one level ILIKEIT is fine as personal perference but as a reason to keep an article it's discouraged and is discussed in more detail at WP:AADD --Fredrick day 13:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in my first comment, I do not oppose the deletion with any vehemence. It probably IS overkill. However, the core elements should be moved over to the sourcebook article, if only to give a better indication what is covered in it. MadMaxDog 00:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may do some of that moving stuff over, but I am not sure I will have the time in the next days before it is deleted. MadMaxDog 00:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well we could get the closing Admin to userfy it (if it closes as a delete) to a sandbox off your userpage, so you could work on it? --Fredrick day 09:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on closer look (especially on closer look at the monster it has become in the last day!) I have either decided that there isn't that much to move over, or I have given up. Whatever ;-) Anyway, I reworked the manual article over a little, and if I ever feel the need to do more, I'll have the original at hand. MadMaxDog 09:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article should preferably contain more references, it does however contain a secondary source, should be tagged for references. Wikipedia is not paper, I see no reason to delete a perfectly encyclopaedic article. Matthew 07:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - as far as I am aware, there ARE no secondary sources for much of the content. The sourcebook was written only partly based on the movie, much of its content is fleshed out separately. Very much staying within the Aliens universe, but probably not found anywhere. The nearest other source would be the Aliens vs Predator video games, and that is a dodgy proposition to base it on, sadly. As for me, as noted, in the meantime I've come to accept the idea of deletion as long as some important stuff is carried over to the article for the actual sourcebook. MadMaxDog 09:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Primary sources are acceptable if used properly, see WP:NOR#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Matthew 09:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not debating that. I was saying that you will not get many sources OTTHER than this one. MadMaxDog 10:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which fool is currently extending that article like hell? MadMaxDog 09:18, 18 April 2007 (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.