Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power cell (science fiction): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 12:46, 21 June 2007

Power cell (science fiction)

Delete as completely unsourced original research. Otto4711 06:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, I couldn't have put that any better myself. Groupthink 07:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect. Delete per nom or perhaps redirect to Battery or something like that on the off chance that the term is used as such. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 07:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specificaly, redirect to Battery (electricity) if a redir is the correct route to take. Groupthink 07:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Electrochemical cell imo. The article itself is original research, but the name is valid for lookup. Turlo Lomon 08:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Electrochemical cell per User:Turlo Lomon. -- saberwyn 08:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some fictional powercells are nuclear or similar and not electrochemical cells. They are an important part of science fction, along with rayguns and airlocks and transporters etc. The author saying how they are described in books and videogames, is to me not much like original research, or else nearly all information in Wikipedia that was got from books and films is original research.^{[clarification needed]} Anthony Appleyard 08:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Original research comprises, amongst other things, an original analysis of data forming a conclusion. You contend that the article that you wrote was not original research. Please cite sources to show where, outside of Wikipedia, your various conclusions such as how power cells behave ("The power cells of rayguns or other weapons often behave like [...]") and how realistic they are ("power packs in games [...] tend to be more realistic [...]") have already been derived and published in a source. If you cannot show that there's a source that has done those analyses and published those conclusions, then your analysis is an original one, first done by you and first published by you here in Wikipedia, which is exactly the sort of thing that is forbidden by our Wikipedia:No original research policy. Please cite sources. Uncle G 09:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - He actually does have a point about terminology, however. This news article, for instance, refers to a "solar power cell", meaning that science fiction aside, the term has been used to refer to a photovoltaic power source as well as an electrochemical source. That leads me to think that replacing the current article with a disambig page is the way to go. Groupthink 09:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with Disambig as per Groupthink. —gorgan_almighty 10:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how about this? Move the current page to Power cell (science fiction) and have Power cell point to a disambig page. You know what, that should happen regardless of whether or not this article is deleted, so I'm going to be bold and just do it. Groupthink 10:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but turn into disambiguation page, per Groupthink's suggestion. Perhaps move this one to Power cell (science fiction) per above, and stub this article. --SunStar Net ^talk 10:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info: I have put a possible disambigified version in Talk:Power cell. Anthony Appleyard 10:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info: I have removed the big OR paragraph. Anthony Appleyard 10:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your case would be better served by finding citations. The article is still an original synthesis. Groupthink 10:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Afd restarts here, as the original Power cell article has been moved to Power cell (science fiction), and Power cell now contains a disambig. The discussion must now relate to whether the Power cell (science fiction) should be kept or deleted, the previous suggestions of Redirect or Replace with disambig no longer being valid. —gorgan_almighty 10:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section break

Delete, original research and synthesis. Groupthink 10:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is original research and does not assert notability. It is an article about a fictional device, but as it does not state what fictional universe(s) it relates to, it cannot be verified or cited. —gorgan_almighty 10:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Power cells occur in many science-fiction scenarios. Anthony Appleyard 10:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then clarify & cite the claims in the article, and expand it with examples. —gorgan_almighty 11:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Improve. The article itself is a mess. However, the power cell in science fiction is an extremely notable creation. It is very notable in the right context; so I say keep absolutely! Meldshal42 20:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There has yet to be a citation of a single source to show that the article can be improved, or that any of the current content isn't original research. If this concept is as notable as you claim it to be, you should have no trouble citing sources to demonstrate that it has been documented in multiple non-trivial published works from independent sources. However, the distinct lack of cited sources, despite repeated requests, indicates that it actually isn't notable at all. It indicates that this article is a wholly novel description of something that is heretofore undocumented, being made up by Wikipedia editors firsthand, because no-one outside of Wikipedia has considered this subject notable enough to actually note it. It further indicates that the real argument for keeping here is not one based in policy — that this is a notable subject for a verifiable encyclopaedia that is free from original research to include — but a subjective standard that Wikipedia should not be employing — you think that this is an important subject that someone should document somewhere, and you want to mis-use Wikipedia for that purpose. Unless you can show that someone actually has already documented it, it doesn't belong in a tertiary source such as Wikipedia. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G 11:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:N, WP:OR. That's about it. Terence 12:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 19:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Information: Since this AfD was started, the page has been much edited: please see this version-compare and reconsider. Anthony Appleyard 05:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How many additional verifiable source citations have been added since this article was AfD nom'd? The answer is none, none more sources. Sorry, but my recommendation is unchanged. Groupthink 08:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. no sources cited to support the article. -- Whpq 19:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 '''This Afd restarts here''', as the original [[Power cell]] article has been moved to [[Power cell (science fiction)]], and [[Power cell]] now contains a disambig.  The discussion must now relate to whether the [[Power cell (science fiction)]] should be kept or deleted, the previous suggestions of ''Redirect'' or ''Replace with disambig'' no longer being valid. &mdash;[[User:Gorgan almighty|gorgan_almighty]] 10:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 ----
-*'''Strong Delete''' unsourced and dubious.
 ===Section break===