Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masers in science fiction

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 to Maser. Seems like we don't have consensus whether the list is appropriate for maser but the discussion tends against this being its own article. Going for the redirect to satisfy these requesting removal of the article and to allow for a merger if a discussion on Talk:Maser decides that the list belongs there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Masers in science fiction[edit]

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

My PROD was removed citing potential notability so I will create this AfD. I believe this article is merely unreferenced WP:LISTCRUFT. It's your typical "in popular culture" spinoff that is unwarranted. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT and poorly referenced trivia. Ajf773 (talk) 08:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or if someone is willing, shorten, prosify and merge back into Maser from whence it came.--Pontificalibus (talk) 09:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've split this stub from maser because it does not belong there, even if sourced. It is very easy to source this information (though I'm not interested in making time for this ;-), but it would overload maser with a bloated, very weakly relevant list. Materialscientist (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reading WP:IPCA should help clarify the situation in that regard. Ultimately that was the wrong route to take; the section should have been pared down instead, if you did not have time to take responsibility for the referencing of the split you made. Bloated, weakly relevant lists have no place on Wikipedia whether they're a subsection or their own article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedurally, I'm happy with the "article spin-off + AfD" approach for this type of situation. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I most assuredly am not. It's not how spinoff is supposed to work, per WP:AVOIDSPLIT and WP:IPCA. Jclemens (talk) 05:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a spun-off, un-cited, "In Popular Culture" section. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re-merge A deletion of a split is not appropriate way to handle it; it should be merged back into the main article from whence it was split if it lacks sufficient standalone notability, per WP:ATD-M and WP:AVOIDSPLIT. Jclemens (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:COSTLY, the term's too obscure for a redirect._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Besides, COSTLY is an essay, while WP:ATD is policy. Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the word "Maser" is new to me, and I'd be very surprised if all or any of the pop culture references actually define the mention as a "microwave amplification by stimulated emission of radiation" device: unsurprisingly, the introduction of this terrible piece of fancruft points out "characteristics often differ from those of real masers". A merge is undesirable: see the trivia crapfest at Rayguns in fiction. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the mentions are extremely minor to the point of a single weapon being called a maser, regardless of whether it operates like one. The only arguably (semi-)notable one is the Maser Cannons in Godzilla. It's a pretty uncommon term overall, though._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:03, 20 September 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.