Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magnetic Accelerator Cannon

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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 12:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also includes:

• Plasma Torpedo (Halo)

A cannon that appears in one scene of Halo 2, and torpedoes that only appear in the background. This is a level of detail wholly unsuited to Wikipedia, plus these are unsourced and written from an in-universe perspective.

If these are deleted, Category:Halo space weapons can also be deleted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Combination 00:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I'm not too familiar with details of the Halo series (what can I say, I live under a rock), but if the subject is as non-notable as the author states then there's certainly no need for an article to go into such detail. -- H·G (^words/_works) 01:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both, per nom. --ColourBurst 03:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Both - These two Halo weapons are mainly in the books. Yes, they are in every single one of the three books. The MAC system was the climax of one of them. The plasma torpedo is a pivotal weapon in every single book. Perhaps I have not followed WP:WAF. Probably not. I can fix that, in the unlikely event that either of these two articles survive this AfD discussion. I want to know what point of WP:NOT has been violated in either of these two articles. And how can detail be a bad thing?

I will be going on vacation to Delta Halo, no, to a real ___location on a real vacation, so I am sorry I will not be able to participate in this AfD discussion. So have fun without me.

Cheers, RelentlessRouge 12:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 14:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination --RMHED 15:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The cannons were also talked about in the Halo novels. Also, if this gets deleted, I will immediately nominate it for undeletion.--Kross^Talk 19:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Magnetic Accelerator Cannon, delete Plasma Torpedo (Halo). The MAC appears in all the Halo novels and is a fairly important weapon. The other article can go. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 03:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The cannons are very important in the universe even though they only had a short air time in the games. I think that someone who played the first level of Halo 2 and was curious about MACs would come here looking for an article. I would. I think the level of detail is acceptable - it's only two pages or so. As for the in-universe-perspective, we can re-write it to be better. Aside: While Star Wars is more culturally significant, read Lightsaber (57k long) (and Lightsaber users, and Lightsaber combat). Also in-universe, hella long and detailed. I don't think any of the movies talk about construction, or specific forms; that's all expanded universe. Summary: I don't see why it should be deleted when people would gain information from it. Isn't that the point of Wikipedia? --DevastatorIIC 03:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I just read WP:DEL, WP:NOT, WP:GD, WP:WAF, WP:IMP, and WP:CRUFT. I do agree that the article is very in-universe (Wikipedia articles should describe fiction and fictional elements from the perspective of the real world, not from the perspective of the fiction itself.) and should be taken out-of-universe. However, that would reduce the article to a mere stub. I do like the idea of a Technology of Halo article (thanks, Deckiller), wherein we (or, more likely, I) could put the real-world explanations of different weapons/vehicals/etc. However, for the time being, we should not delete it. I would call this an extended Merge. All of you: Please point out to me in the above WP: articles how exactly this article fits any criteria for deletion. --DevastatorIIC 23:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep MAC cannons are a focal point of one of the Halo novels, and it is the UNSC's only superweapon. Kind of like thermonuclear missiles with today's world. I've never heard of the "plasma torpedo" though. Regarding the in-universe perspective: there is no information regarding outside-universe perspective. — [Mac Davis] (talk)

  Isn't the lack of out-of-universe information a red flag that it's not a topic for an encyclopedia about the real world? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge it and all related articles. Remember — don't ruin a person's passion, which can be extensively polished to make them positive editors. Heck, look at my first few edits. Do things in phases. — Deckiller 04:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I take that back. This is too much to be salvagable; Delete. Users should explain the technology of halo in a general, encyclopedia Technology of Halo article. Merging just two articles can't really solve anything (unlike starwars-cruft, where it has to be done in phases, not just delete/keep). — Deckiller 04:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The MAC does not just appear once in Halo - it is referred to continually in the Halo books, in the first Halo game, and is an integral part of the "history" of the UNSC. I do think it could be rewritten, but it should certainly be kept. It's informative and useful. –- kungming·2 | ^{(Talk·Contact)} 00:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into meta-article that features all vehicles, weapons, etc, in the Halo universe. Or, merge into United Nations Space Command#Technology and The Covenant, respectively.
• Keep I haven't read the books, but if these articles are highly relevant there, then the articles should probably stay. But uh, all the people saying that should probably crack open their books and cite it in the article, otherwise the closing admin would fully be within his rights to delete for being unsourced and original research. JoshWook 14:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While the article still needs to be cited within itself, I noticed references have been added to show their significance in the book. Therefore I solidify my keep. JoshWook 13:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge All crufty tech articles into Technology in the Halo universe--Zxcvbnm 17:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - RelentlessRouge (talk · contribs) has been spamming user talk pages about this AFD, such as here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Garnering support isn't allowed? In that case, I'm guilty of contacting people who are interested in Halo as well. --DevastatorIIC 04:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Spamming a dozen talk pages isn't allowed, no. See WP:SPAM. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It doesn't really look like spamming to me - it looks more like canvassing, which isn't exactly the same thing. The WP:SPAM page itself says there is no "hard and fast" rule against it, and that it may be acceptable under some circumstances (but leaves the door open to exactly what those are). I think it's fair that since he won't be able to participate in these discussions, he's letting others know about them. JoshWook 12:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's very tacky to canvas for votes on AFD. Referring to that page, "don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's also Wikipedia:Survey notification as well, but that's just a proposed one; WP:SPAM holds more weight as it is a guideline. Hbdragon88 05:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Cruft. --Chris Griswold 03:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Chris Griswold. Also, Wikipedia is not paper. Rogue 9 20:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment you do know Chris Griswold voted delete correct? Whispering^(talk/c) 21:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I know. I'm making fun of him. "Cruft" is simply the term for "a subject I don't personally like." It is not a reason to delete. Rogue 9 18:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP is also not an indiscriminate collection of information. "Not paper" mostly applies to video games and other topics that wouldn't normally have room in a paper encyclopedia; this article borders on excessive, specific information. Hbdragon88 05:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Important part of the Halo series. Oliverdl 04:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per nom, if this is "an important part of the Halo series" mention it in the Halo articles. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Herein lies the problem - though the Magnetic Accelerator Cannon is an important part of the story of Halo, it's not specifically mentioned in the games too many times, as the games are from a first-person's perspective (the Master Chief's) and of course, he doesn't operate strategic weapons. Therefore, the MAC cannot be mentioned in the Halo articles really well, as it would seem completely out of place. It is however, mentioned in the books, which describe events leading to the two games, and set the stage for the situations played in the games. That's why I voted to keep earlier. –- kungming·2 | ^{(Talk·Contact)} 19:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  The novels have their own articles, where this could probably be mentioned. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and condense into the appropriate Halo novel articles. — TKD::Talk 06:47, 10 August 2006 (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.