Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonic shower (2nd nomination)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2008 August 13.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 per WP:V. That policy states, in relevant part: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." The article is currently only sourced to two wikis, which are not reliable sources, and it does not appear to have had better sourcing at any time in the past. Furthermore, no specific sources have been provided here - links to mere lists of Google search results are inadequate. As a core policy, WP:V cannot be outweighed by consensus. I am therefore compelled to discount all "keep" opinions in the vein of "the sources are out there" and delete the article. It may be userfied on request, and may be recreated after it has been complemented with sources that satisfy the requirements of WP:V and WP:N. Sandstein 07:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic shower

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and as such is simply a repetition of plot information from other Star Trek articles plot sections. As such, it is duplicative plot summary, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep due to clear consensus in previous discussion, which closed as an unambiguous keep. Concept is used in a variety of ways as seen here, which suggests both notability and verifiability. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was a year ago, and no notability has been demonstrated, so what you must mean is Speedy delete. Also, the last decision was decided upon with zero proof of notability, so it should have been delete then too.

Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean speedy keep, because the existence in multiple sources demonstrates notability. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You must be confusing this with another article, as none have been demonstrated of any kind. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No the arguments made in the previous discussion and the results of the Google Book search are sufficient to convince me it is worthy of being covered in some manner. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Star Trek. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 05:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- you know an article's in trouble when the only sources are Wookieepedia and Memory Alpha. A cursory google search doesn't give me anything I'd consider a reliable, substantial independent source. Reyk _YO! 05:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Google Books turns up much more than that. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - All of them are unrelated concepts or works of fiction. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - There's so many of them that surely we can cover it in some manner. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Come on, you know it'll take more than that to sway me. But I'm not really intending to debate this point again, so this'll be my last word on the matter. Reyk _YO! 07:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subtrivial SF background concept, of the "[science-y sounding adjective] [everyday noun]" sort. No practical hope of verifiability, let alone notability. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Given all the sources and interest among editors, it is unquestionably verifiable and notable. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please add any reliable secondary sources that deal with this subject more than in passing to the article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which would be the best way to go, focusing it on the Stark Trek reference, making it a disambugation page, or some other manner in which we deal with the concept in general, that's what we need to consider. And as such I am open-minded to ideas on how to go around that as I don't like to just act unilaterally. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - What kind of reliable sources do you have that see fit to comment on this subject? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Like what Jasynnash2 links to below. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Almost all of those are metaphoric uses, completely unrelated to the subject of this article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        If you wish to boldly write a new article or add to this article, I don't think people would discourage that. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Repeating things I say to you doesn't make you clever. I'm not proposing we rewrite this article, merely pointing out that the hits in a Google search of "sonic shower" are all works of fiction or unrelated metaphoric usage. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Which are sufficient enough to sustain an article on Wikipedia. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No, they're not. Not every combination of two words in proximity merits an article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, they are as this combination of two words covers a notable and verifiable topic. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources that aren't works of fiction, wikis or 'guides' produced by the companies marketing these works of fiction mention this in any significant fashion. It fails WP:GNG. the article as it stands is an unverified combination of plot summary, speculation and fancruft. I can't think of any other reason why "At Republic Mobile Surgical Units, staff members such as Jos Vondar and Barriss Offee had their own private sonic showers—and possibly refreshers—in their personal quarters." would make its way into an encyclopedia. Delete this article. Protonk (talk) 07:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the subject is not just covered in Star Trek but, in other fiction (and possibly the theory in scholarly works (though I don't have access I know others here do)). As far as coverage in reliable sources go see [this]. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see potential in this article, not just in Star Trek universe but other sci-fi applications, as well as "potential real-world applications" got no problem with it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this is a viable article, but needs to be expanded beyond just the Star Trek application. It has become a device in other SF as well, plus I've seen "science of tomorrow" type shows suggesting this is a bit of tech with potential real-world applications. (Anyone know if it's mentioned in Discovery Channel's How William Shatner Changed the World?) Anyway, I note the article has been flagged for rescue and I think this should stand for awhile (assuming the flag wasn't put up at the previous AFD). Give it another year, after which no prejudice to renominating if it hasn't been improved. There are no time limits of Wikipedia and no one has demonstrated that harm is being done by leaving the article up pending improvements. 23skidoo (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Household word. Concept found throughout science fiction. Sources are almost surely out there, waiting to be found and incorporated through the wiki process. AfD hero (talk) 17:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an established concept in science fiction. Just because it doesn't exist in real life doesn't mean it has to be deleted. JIP | Talk 18:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Original research-laden article that lacks reliable sources or even an assertion of notability. Since the previous AfD, it has not gone through any sort of significant editing, revision, or the called-for "rewrite", and none of the supposed sources have wended their way in. --EEMIV (talk) 06:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds like a call for Wikipedia:SOFIXIT. As it's been established above that topic is notable and sources exist, then it seems Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state applies. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I pointed out to you recently at another AfD, "so fix it" is a glib response when there aren't sitting at hand any of the reliable sources needed to offer an encyclopedic treatment. (Jasynnash2's link is to plot summaries and passing references.) If you're so certain they're out there and I'm as blind as your basset hound in seeing them, then how about *you* fix it? The burden of proof is on the folks arguing to add/retain content. This wasn't done in almost a year since the last AfD; I doubt the materials are there to make it happen in one year or twenty. But, hey, prove me wrong and hop to it. --EEMIV (talk) 06:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Since you brought it up. The whole point of the link I provided was to show that the subject is not Star Trek-centric and is covered by other works of fiction and that the term is used in the real world outside of the fiction community. People above seem to think it is just Star Trek "cruft" (whatever that actually means) and I'm simply pointing out that that isn't the case. I've never objected to a rewrite of the article (I'd do it myself as a WP:BOLD move but, am an absolute crap writer as many people on here can attest). I also don't know how to find things from scholarly sources (which I believe I stated before) or even know where google books reside. So I did a simple GNews search and provided what I found (I didn't bother going through all the hits from a standard Ghit search as there were too many). If the concept exists in multiple works of fiction, based in different "universes", do all the works count as "primary source"? What about the various SF magazines (Primary source? Secondary? or 3rd Party?). Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - And another question? At which point do "trivial mentions" in multiple real world sources not directly involved with a subject mean that the thing has demonstrated importance and/or significance? Or is it always "just trivial coverage"? Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - this would seem to be real world use of sound to clean things. (Although again for transparency I'm not an expert). BTW I found google scholar. this one may or may not be ST related. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh, just for some heads up, there is a device called an ultrasonic sink (or U-sink) that has been around for a while where an object is submerged in a bath of liquid and ultrasonic waves remove debris from small crevices. I would not describe it as an "ultrasonic shower" in any sense. Protonk (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article consists of original research and unreliable sources. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 01:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reliable sources turn up on Google searches and as they are secondary in nature this is not original research. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Non sequitur, your facts are uncoordinated; this article consists of original research and unreliable sources. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The existence of reliable secondary sources and the absence of a thesis or argument in the article suggests unoriginal research. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Was that my mistake? I'm sorry, I didn't see the reliable sources citing the article. Should I purge my cache? I'll keep checking, and revise my opinion duly based upon the article. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Some of the reliable sources have been mentined above as well. By the way, we don't delete based soley on the status of the article itself, we also consider Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        "We", or Camaron (talk · contribs)?
        Regardless, this is a discussion, and I've provided my input. For an almost four-year-old article which has already undergone an AfD for similar reasoning, I expect it to meet WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:N if it were going to. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        My feeling is that it meets WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:N. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable fictional device which has not received substantial coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN is not a valid reason for deletion especially when it isn't true. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - merely being mentioned is not sufficient to sustain an article. Reliable sources writing about the subject would be needed, and I don't see that here. -- Whpq (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not merely mentioned as demonstrated in the reliable sources provided earlier in the discussion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per previous AfD including possible new definition ala advertising industry and that uses of Sonic showers can be reliably sources to the original episodes. It takes time to track all of that down but would help with these discussions. Literary and fictional devices, IMHO to show naked people in space - as if spandex wasn't sexy enough - are abundantly used for a variety of purposes and can be treated encyclopedicly. Expand and improve writing so the rest of us can understand this concept. Banjeboi 21:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to post something, make it have some baring on what we are discussing, which is notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JS, please keep to the discussion of the article, and do not attack others for what they post. DGG (talk) 00:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Others have already asserted notability above. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People posting text that is basically nonsense to filibuster the AFD, create confusion, and distract from the nominating concerns is not an "attack", it is what is taking place here. No notability has been established of any kind, and it is obstructive and rude to make long posts that add nothing to this discussion. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If notability was not established, multiple editors would not be arguing to keep across two AfDs. These editors are not lying per "assume good faith." --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There exists the possibility that they are wrong in good faith. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's the case. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion carries only the weight of the arguments you make to support it. Empty assertions of notability and vague gestures to articles using the two words in proximity don't carry much weight, no matter how much good faith you have. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, I am not alone in my opinion and others are correctly convinced that the topic is sufficiently legitimate that there's no pressing need to redlink this search term. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:43, 12 August 2008 (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.