Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vibroblade

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. Stifle (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vibroblade[edit]

Clearly fails WP:V (no sources cited) and also probably fails WP:NOR. In many cases, the source material never called the weapon in question a "vibroblade," and categorizing it as such without a reliable source is clearly original research. Remove the non-cited material and there would be nothing left. *** Crotalus *** 03:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete nn concept with a heavy overlay of WP:OR. I say "weak" only because Google turns up so very many hits for the term. It appears to be an idea common to many sci-fi RPGs. JJL (talk) 03:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep. I just added a reference to real-life vibrating scalpels. Perhaps rename or merge/redir to an article on vibrating bladed instruments. jdb (talk) 03:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The J&J "harmonic scalpel" isn't specifically called a "vibroblade" in its page; the article doesn't seem like much more than original research and fancruft. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you back up a bit? What's J&J, and by "page" do you mean its article? I also have to be anal about one thing: please do not resort to "fancruft" as a deletion reason. This is not a new issue. The word has no definition beyond "stuff that I dislike and/or want gone", and is widely considered to be insulting. Arguments don't need it. Thanks. --Kiz o r apparently now on behalf of the Invisible Nitpicking Council, 19:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment J&J would refer to "Johnson & Johnson", and there was a reference to a real-life vibroblade manufactured by Johnson & Johnson. There was a reference to a webpage on that implement- thus page is webpage. I used the term "fancruft" in the sense of "content [that] is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question", but if you don't consider that valid, I'm not sure how you can protest the WP:NOR argument. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research, for the most part. Subject probably isn't notable (haven't done an exhaustive search yet). Not a helpful or appropriate navigational page--could be replaced by a two sentence string. UNLIKE lightsaber, vibroblades are often shown in movies as...knives, so there isn't a whole lot of production commentary and special effects discussion about how they might have put some LED's on a butter knife in Attack from the Martian Nunnery or whatever. Protonk (talk) 14:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Article is definitely OR. Also, I noticed a few non-"vibroblades" added to the list by the original author. This looks like a cursory glance at source material to compile there own conclusion, and if you actually read the material, quite a few don't match the definition created by the author. Turlo Lomon (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article just needs to be improved and have citations added. The weapon is common in many areas of fiction. There are other articles on fictitious weapons like raygun or planet killer. Just improve the article, keep it as a stub for now. ScienceApe (talk) 03:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no distinct criteria for items' inclusion (at least those not called "vibroblade". Star Wars item (and any other universe's identically-named item) seems not to meet WP:GNG. --EEMIV (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have cited a work of the Oxford University Press which seems adequate notability. The rest is a matter of cleanup, not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It does nothing of the sort. First, you haven't linked to a source at all, but rather a search result/preview. Second, even with this amalgamation of sci-fi vocabulary, there is no evidence of significant third-party coverage by sources. --EEMIV (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. This does appear in several dozen unrelated works, and it's not too much of a stretch to classify something as a vibroblade when the work it appears in describes it as a vibrating blade. In fact change the article name, apparently "vibroblade" is closer to a specific Star Wars term than a general one. I'm not ready to support a deletion, rather looking further into ways of improving this. If there are blades on the list that don't vibrate, that's a matter of cleanup and of improving the article lead. We should probably do the latter anyway. --Kiz o r 19:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once N's done, a good way to improve the lead would be to quote a couple of hard scifi works about the functioning and advantages of the vibroblade/vibrating blade/whatever as presented in those works. Perferably a couple of different ones. Hard scifi is that technically-minded fiction with plausible and often painstakingly explained premises. Doing this in the style of the glossary should work. --Kiz o r 19:57, 9 September 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.