- 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 keep. Sandstein 18:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Smart Pistol
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Smart Pistol ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I really don't think mentions in a couple of overall game reviews + a couple of blurbs on questionably RS fandom websites support WP:N here. This is more appropriately discussed in Titanfall. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 03:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 04:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. I generally think fictional objects are not notable, but there are exceptions. We have one reliable and in-depth source, [1], and some decent mentions in passing. This is pretty borderline, and I'll sit on the fence here for a while and see if anyone can find any other good source. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:55, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Per Piotrus. As the article's creator, I am fully aware of the qualifications for
WP:N and I believe this article fully passes them. The sites cited are some of the most major game journalism sites out there. This just seems like
WP:IDONTLIKEIT and the nom has refused to discuss whether the article is notable and isn't assuming good faith. Per Piotrus, there is one article entirely about the Smart Pistol's gameplay implications, and many numerous mentions. There's also
this article that hasn't been integrated into the article yet about how a real life prop version was created, and
an entire article by Kyle Orland about how good the Smart Pistol is that I should be adding in shortly.
ZXCVBNM (
TALK)
09:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- " This just seems like
WP:IDONTLIKEIT and the nom has refused to discuss whether the article is notable and isn't assuming good faith." - Literally none of these things are accurate. –
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs)
14:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Re: the lack of assumption of good faith: You posted a PROD even while the article was still under construction, without messaging me first to ask why I thought the article was notable. I messaged you telling you it had reliable sources, but you immediately went to AfD. That, I think, is a bit uncivil, and if done to a new editor would come across as
WP:BITEy. Such knee-jerk attempts to delete ultimately hurts good faith attempts to nominate actual cruft for deletion.
ZXCVBNM (
TALK)
15:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not interested in having this argument with you. I've made my case for why "being mentioned in reviews of the game" + a couple of blurbs in non-RS publications does not support notability for every game element. "But I say the sources are reliable" is not a magic bullet to get people to stop disagreeing with you. There is nothing further to discuss here. –
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs)
15:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- I just want to ask what your criteria are to determine unreliability. Because community consensus at WP:VG/S says otherwise. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 03:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not interested in having this argument with you. I've made my case for why "being mentioned in reviews of the game" + a couple of blurbs in non-RS publications does not support notability for every game element. "But I say the sources are reliable" is not a magic bullet to get people to stop disagreeing with you. There is nothing further to discuss here. –
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs)
15:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Re: the lack of assumption of good faith: You posted a PROD even while the article was still under construction, without messaging me first to ask why I thought the article was notable. I messaged you telling you it had reliable sources, but you immediately went to AfD. That, I think, is a bit uncivil, and if done to a new editor would come across as
WP:BITEy. Such knee-jerk attempts to delete ultimately hurts good faith attempts to nominate actual cruft for deletion.
ZXCVBNM (
TALK)
15:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- " This just seems like
WP:IDONTLIKEIT and the nom has refused to discuss whether the article is notable and isn't assuming good faith." - Literally none of these things are accurate. –
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs)
14:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. The subject appears to be adequately covered by reliable independent sources to justify a standalone article. Particularly where there's at least one instance of a game journalist writing about how it inspired a later work within the genre. Haleth ( talk) 13:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. Seems to be generally covered, and newly discovered sources means that this article can be more improved from its current state. It makes sense why this would be nominated for deletion, just the thought of a "gun from a video game" makes you want to speedy delete it. Heck, dozens of full characters fro video game series don't make it far. It truly does feel like n IDONTLIKEIT case, but it makes sense. Le Panini (Talk tome?) 16:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: Sources in the Reception section make it clear that the weapon is discussed specifically and in detail. — Toughpigs ( talk) 16:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep With a Reception section like that, this should never have been nominated for deletion. It clearly meets all requirements to prove notability. Dream Focus 12:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per Piotrus and Zxcvbnm. There's multiple sources covering this with substantial information, including out-of-universe context about its development and its real-world significance. It clearly meets the WP:GNG and I don't even personally see any issues with WP:GAMEGUIDE material based on how it's currently written, though if it arises it can be dealt with through the ordinary editing process. Could even grow into a WP:GA with more work (particularly scaling back some of the heavy quotations in the reception, but that's a whole other discussion, and only helps establish notability for this current AFD). Shooterwalker ( talk) 16:11, 29 October 2020 (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.
- 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 keep. Sandstein 18:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Smart Pistol
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Smart Pistol ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I really don't think mentions in a couple of overall game reviews + a couple of blurbs on questionably RS fandom websites support WP:N here. This is more appropriately discussed in Titanfall. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 03:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 04:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. I generally think fictional objects are not notable, but there are exceptions. We have one reliable and in-depth source, [1], and some decent mentions in passing. This is pretty borderline, and I'll sit on the fence here for a while and see if anyone can find any other good source. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:55, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Per Piotrus. As the article's creator, I am fully aware of the qualifications for
WP:N and I believe this article fully passes them. The sites cited are some of the most major game journalism sites out there. This just seems like
WP:IDONTLIKEIT and the nom has refused to discuss whether the article is notable and isn't assuming good faith. Per Piotrus, there is one article entirely about the Smart Pistol's gameplay implications, and many numerous mentions. There's also
this article that hasn't been integrated into the article yet about how a real life prop version was created, and
an entire article by Kyle Orland about how good the Smart Pistol is that I should be adding in shortly.
ZXCVBNM (
TALK)
09:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- " This just seems like
WP:IDONTLIKEIT and the nom has refused to discuss whether the article is notable and isn't assuming good faith." - Literally none of these things are accurate. –
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs)
14:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Re: the lack of assumption of good faith: You posted a PROD even while the article was still under construction, without messaging me first to ask why I thought the article was notable. I messaged you telling you it had reliable sources, but you immediately went to AfD. That, I think, is a bit uncivil, and if done to a new editor would come across as
WP:BITEy. Such knee-jerk attempts to delete ultimately hurts good faith attempts to nominate actual cruft for deletion.
ZXCVBNM (
TALK)
15:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not interested in having this argument with you. I've made my case for why "being mentioned in reviews of the game" + a couple of blurbs in non-RS publications does not support notability for every game element. "But I say the sources are reliable" is not a magic bullet to get people to stop disagreeing with you. There is nothing further to discuss here. –
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs)
15:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- I just want to ask what your criteria are to determine unreliability. Because community consensus at WP:VG/S says otherwise. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 03:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not interested in having this argument with you. I've made my case for why "being mentioned in reviews of the game" + a couple of blurbs in non-RS publications does not support notability for every game element. "But I say the sources are reliable" is not a magic bullet to get people to stop disagreeing with you. There is nothing further to discuss here. –
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs)
15:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Re: the lack of assumption of good faith: You posted a PROD even while the article was still under construction, without messaging me first to ask why I thought the article was notable. I messaged you telling you it had reliable sources, but you immediately went to AfD. That, I think, is a bit uncivil, and if done to a new editor would come across as
WP:BITEy. Such knee-jerk attempts to delete ultimately hurts good faith attempts to nominate actual cruft for deletion.
ZXCVBNM (
TALK)
15:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- " This just seems like
WP:IDONTLIKEIT and the nom has refused to discuss whether the article is notable and isn't assuming good faith." - Literally none of these things are accurate. –
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs)
14:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. The subject appears to be adequately covered by reliable independent sources to justify a standalone article. Particularly where there's at least one instance of a game journalist writing about how it inspired a later work within the genre. Haleth ( talk) 13:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. Seems to be generally covered, and newly discovered sources means that this article can be more improved from its current state. It makes sense why this would be nominated for deletion, just the thought of a "gun from a video game" makes you want to speedy delete it. Heck, dozens of full characters fro video game series don't make it far. It truly does feel like n IDONTLIKEIT case, but it makes sense. Le Panini (Talk tome?) 16:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: Sources in the Reception section make it clear that the weapon is discussed specifically and in detail. — Toughpigs ( talk) 16:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep With a Reception section like that, this should never have been nominated for deletion. It clearly meets all requirements to prove notability. Dream Focus 12:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per Piotrus and Zxcvbnm. There's multiple sources covering this with substantial information, including out-of-universe context about its development and its real-world significance. It clearly meets the WP:GNG and I don't even personally see any issues with WP:GAMEGUIDE material based on how it's currently written, though if it arises it can be dealt with through the ordinary editing process. Could even grow into a WP:GA with more work (particularly scaling back some of the heavy quotations in the reception, but that's a whole other discussion, and only helps establish notability for this current AFD). Shooterwalker ( talk) 16:11, 29 October 2020 (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.