Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gravity-well projector

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. --Coredesat 07:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gravity-well projector

Gravity-well projector (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article about fictional technology with no assertion of real-world notability. Lack of coverage by reliable sources makes it impossible for these articles to meet WP:WAF. --EEMeltonIV 03:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm also nominating the following articles for the same reasons:

• Tracking beacon (Star Wars) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Hypercomm (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Hyperwave Inertia Momentum Sustainer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Power supply (Star Wars) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Repulsorlift (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

--EEMeltonIV 03:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all, nom says it all: no real-life notability, no reliable sources, etc. Pure fancruft. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 03:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all - lack coverage by reliable, verifiable third party sources. Oh, and nominator, did you mean WP:FICT instead of WP:WAF? Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Response - I meant to convey that the lack of third-party sources makes an out-of-universe perspective per WAF impossible. Of course, lack of sources also makes it hard to establish notability per WP:FICT. --EEMeltonIV 11:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I am a sci-fi-fan, these are not even significant terms in sci-fi. Guy (Help!) 10:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable. Judgesurreal777 16:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge all into one article that can be zapped over to the Star Wars universe. Although I'm not a Star Wars fan, all five of these are apparently part of the books (and sometimes films) in the heavy selling world of Star Wars. None of these merit their own article, but the fictional technology. Sure, these aren't "significant terms in sci-fi", but any science fiction fan can recognize these universal concepts. I think the Trekkie equivalents are tractor beam, warp drive, subspace radio, dilithium crystals, etc.; other authors have other names. Mandsford 22:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all Do not have the sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 03:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep all, because of incredible notability as part of a major culture phenomenon with movie, television, comic book, video game, etc. appearances. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • There is no evidence of any sources to allow these articles to satisfy the general definition of notability, WP:N, or the specific definition for fictional concepts, WP:FICT. You just can't say "Oh yeah, it's notable" and expect your opinion to carry any weight. Jay32183 00:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• I think that a single article about the technology described in the series would be notable. Often, the description of the tech in a science fiction novel is a subliminal lesson in physics, chemistry, etc., I agree, however, that none of these things, individually, are notable. In this case, the black whole may be greater than the sun of its parsecs. Mandsford 17:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

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.