Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plasma Rifle (Halo)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 all except Plasma Pistol, it's reverted to a redirect. - Bobet 09:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plasma Rifle (Halo)[edit]

Also includes:

List of weapons in Halo and List of weapons in Halo 2 were both deleted on AFD, and now we have individual entries on each weapon. These entries are borderline reposts, written from a completely in-universe style, are completely unsourced, and are a level of detail wholly inappropriate for an encyclopedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If these are deleted, Category:Halo weapons will be depopulated and can also be deleted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Deflector shield (Halo) to this nomination, as it is closely related and the same reasoning applies. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Combination 00:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fancruft. Find these people a Halo wiki. Morgan Wick 01:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Why anyone thinks we need an article on individual weapons in a game series I do not know. ViridaeTalk 01:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If an individual weapon in fiction is deeply embedded into popular culture (like Lightsaber) then it does require its own article, but these don't satisfy that criteria. So delete. --ColourBurst 03:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, all of this is covered in more detail in the Halo Wiki page, where it belongs. -- H·G (words/works) 02:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a Halo wiki is just the thing. --Ezratrumpet 05:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: Individual pages on each weapon are confusing and cause clutter, and it's a very minor topic. A merge would benefit everybody. --Bronzey 08:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article and put the info on the Halo and Halo 2 pages Konman72 11:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I do agree that these need deletion, but the information needs to go somewhere and I don't think it will all fit into the main articles so perhaps, as Ace of Sevens suggests, they should be put into a meta-article List of weapons and equipment in the Halo universe. This would contain all the info from the past list articles and the individual articles. Konman72 00:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I wrote three of these articles, because my personal beliefs, which you may or may not share, are that things should not just go to their own Wiki. Most Star Wars articles shouldn't be transferred to Wookieepedia. Most Halo articles shouldn't be transferred to the HaloWiki or Halopedia (they're different). When I told one of my friends was informed that there was an online information repository, an encyclopedia, known as Wikipedia, he was overjoyed. This was due to the face that he could look up things for video games. Not strategy guides, but information. And then, he fails to find any weapons for Halo 2 or Halo: Combat Evolved. His opinion of Wikipedia goes down a lot, because it is lacking many articles. And he doesn't even know of HaloWiki or Halopedia. And you can't just put a redirect instead of this article, because Wikipedia is not a web directory.

None of these articles are strategy guides. So even though Wikipedia is a strategy guide, I would like to see what is in WP:NOT that I have violated.

I will not be able to partake in this discussion, because I am going on vacation. Ironically, to Delta Halo. But vacation for real. I will abide by anything that this discussion churns out. So have fun without me.

Cheers, RelentlessRouge 12:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I agree, a single page for all of these topics would be better than what it's like now, and the people who want the articles would be happy. --Bronzey 00:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I support this idea too. Make a single page for Halo weapons and vehicles. That way we'll all be happy. Should I be bold and start one? Or will that be deleted too? — [Mac Davis] (talk)
  • Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 00:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be noted by those saying merge/keep that the Halo 2 weapon list was already deleted through AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weapons in Halo 2), as stated by the nom. Wickethewok 05:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Making individual articles for weapons that were deleted in a earlier AfD is verging on WP:POINT. Whispering(talk/c) 13:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All I ask is that WP:NOT a game guide should NOT be used as the justification for deletion. These unreferenced articles are quite clearly WP:OR, so why can't we simply use that as argument and be done with it? Well, the reason is obvious - contrary to Whispering, a number of people interested in deleting "gamecruft" are trying to make a WP:POINT and continue building precedent. Either stop and open up a discussion to clarify the policy, or vote to delete based on notability, verifiability, or original research. Any of those reasons are fine. But there is clearly not a consensus on the boundaries of WP:NOT when it comes to what constitues a "how-to" in reference to game-related material. JoshWook 14:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add Citations. No article is above the basic rules of Wikipedia, but there is no reason we can't keep these. If anything, Merge into Weapons from the Halo trilogy. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 20:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all video game items as fancruft. Sandstein 20:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment While I voted delete for reasons of original research, could you please point me towards the wikipedia policy that says that all video game items are fancruft? Furthermore, I'd like to see the wikipedia policy (not guideline) on fancruft. JoshWook 13:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - RelentlessRouge (talk · contribs) has been spamming user talk pages about this AFD, such as here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Cruft. --Chris Griswold 03:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Cite the policy on cruft, please. JoshWook 13:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Generally, it means that it's overspecific plot summary that is better handled in a more general way in a more general article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • So when a vote references "Cruft" as the only justification for a vote, it in no way has to do with the essay WP:CRUFT? "It is true that things labeled fancruft are often deleted from Wikipedia. This is primarily due to the fact that things labeled as fancruft are often poorly written, unreferenced, unwikified, and non-neutral - all things that lead to deletion. Such articles may also fall foul of Wikipedia's policy against creating "indiscriminate collections of information". Well-referenced and well-written articles on obscure topics are from time to time deleted as well, but such deletions are controversial." - Thess articles fall into the former category, and not the "well-referenced and well-written articles on obscure topics" category, but to simply call them "cruft" is not enough. JoshWook 18:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment - You're not goig to win my vote by criticizing it. If you want to win me over, focus on convincing me that what I think is wrong, not that I'm voting incorrectly. I'm voting correctly for what I think. --Chris Griswold 00:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment If you had actually read the AFD, you would see that I voted to "delete" for reasons of WP:OR. The only problem I have is that "Cruft" is not a valid reason to delete. There is no wikipedia policy (or even guideline) on it, only some vague essays. When the argument of "cruft" is used in place of citing valid policy, all it leads to is a bunch of polarized opinions on whether editors "like" the topic being discussed, as opposed to whether they meet wikipedia's well defined requirements for encyclopedic writing.JoshWook 02:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into master list, as recommended above. Halo's Assault Rifle is fairly iconic, as is the Warthog and "sticky" Plasma Grenade. Icewolf34 18:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article, per lengthy discussion below. I think the more notable weapons (Plasma Sword, Plasma grenade) could be discussed briefly in the Halo articles themselves. Icewolf34 13:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per there being no real reason for deletion. Wikipedia is not paper. Rogue 9 20:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment How about WP:NOR is that a real reason? Because that's what these articles are. Whispering(talk/c) 21:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment How in the world does one go about conducting "original research" on a fictional weapon? Icewolf34 16:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Drawing original conclusions or writing original fiction, based on the fictional work in question. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fair enough. If you point out the sections (or even types of sections) that, in your opinion, violate the ban against OR, I'll be happy to copy-edit them out of this article and others. In my opinion, most of the text of this article can probably be supported by something in the novels or manuals (I don't know offhand, since I'm not exactly an avid Halo fan). I'm sure we can come to a consensus on NOR that doesn't involve deletion, at least. Icewolf34 14:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • All of these articles are entirely over-detailed plot summary or original research. There are no real facts here (save for the inane fact that these are weapons in Halo), only fictional facts. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • So-called "fictional facts" have a place in Wikipedia, just see any Star Wars or Marvel Comics article. It doesn't represent OR just because it doesn't have a real-life basis -- it's the creation of the publishers, not the Wiki editor. Icewolf34 13:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Both the Star Wars and Comics Wikiprojects are making a great deal of effort to remove trivial fictional facts and focus on the real world. Articles that are nothing but fictional facts don't belong on Wikipedia; they're plot summary rearranged into a new pattern, with no real-world context. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Looks like you're right about the Wikiprojects at least, I was surprised to find excerpts like "the WikiProject discourages extreme details and encourages an out-of-universe perspective for all prose" on the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Star_Wars::Star Wars Wiki site. I withdraw my objections to your rationale, although I personally continue to believe that such contributions are useful to Wikipedia. (After all, the WikiProjects don't exist to dictate policy). Anyways, thanks for the clarification. Icewolf34 19:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Related question: how does your stance on this article jive with the Pokemon projects, which include incredibly in-depth discussions on such fictional creatures as Charizard and Bulbasaur? I noticed that you've been involved with such things in the past. Icewolf34 19:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment No, that's a reason for the writer to cite the article. Deleting everything willy-nilly without even trying that is a flagrant waste. Rogue 9 18:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom; unencyclopedic cruft and original research make a bad combination. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment See above question re: NOR. Icewolf34 16:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete here, but keep on Halo Wiki. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 16:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment' It is my believe that the page [1], shows even more proof that Wikipedia is the most extensive and through online encyclopedia there is. Nowhere else can you find so much information in one place. BrettidBrettid 02:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. This is not a gaming wiki, no reason every minutae from every game should be here. Ifnord 14:49, 14 August 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Plasma_Rifle_(Halo)&oldid=1140388009"