Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power loader (Aliens)

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 redirect to Powered exoskeletons in fiction. Black Kite 00:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Power loader (Aliens) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined PROD for some reason. Non-notable element of a work of fiction; device used in 2 scenes of 1 film does not warrant its own article. The article gives no indication of notability, is written entirely in-universe, and cites no sources. It is an unsuitable topic for an encyclopedia as it has no potential to ever become a well-rounded, fleshed-out article. The fictional object has no real-world impact or significance outside of the film in which it appears, and any real-world information about its use in the film (as far as props & filming) would take up no more than a few sentences in Aliens (film). However, this article has no such content. IllaZilla (talk) 03:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, deserves no more than a mention, perhaps at Mecha. Hairhorn (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Aliens (film) Article, its a one off element, and the article is a hypershort stub. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WngLdr34 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  There is nothing to merge. The article has no references or real-world information, and the item's role in the plot is already covered in the film article's plot section. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- I don't have a link, but I saw on Fark within the last week or so, someone built a working load lifter based on the device from the movie. If true, then that certainly indicates some notability. Probably not enough for a full article, but it would take deletion off the table. I'll have to look and see if I can find the article later. (vote changed, source provided, see below) Umbralcorax (talk) 16:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Notability is established through secondary source coverage, not by people building facimiles. And if it's "not enough for a full article", then it certainly doesn't "take deletion off the table". Per our verifiability policy: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Someone building something based on a prop from a movie is not reason enough to justify an independent article about the prop itself. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  vote changed to Keep- here's the source i was referring to: [1]. The fact that, in the article, "Japanese engineers have taken us one step closer to the robot revolution by developing a machine inspired by the movie Aliens." indicates that some real world notability has been managed. "Not enough for a full article" means that there's "not enough for a full article", not "OH MY GOD WE HAVE TO DELETE THIS NOW!!!!". It means that maybe it should be covered/merged under a different article, but that deletion should not even be remotely considered. Umbralcorax (talk) 23:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The information cannot be merged, as it does not exist in the article Power loader (Aliens) at present. It can certainly be added to Aliens (film), in relation to the design of the prop and the impact of the film's special effects, but it does not demonstrate sufficient notability for a stand-alone article on the prop itself. There is no reason not to delete the prop article in its current state, as it is highly unlikely that a well-rounded encyclopedia article could be written on the topic beyond what could be covered in the film article itself. Per WP:SS, the information should develop first in the parent article before a separate article is considered. By comparison, we used to have separate aritcles on nearly every single gun and vehicle from the film, based on the tenuous claim that independent notability was established because some companies had made model kits of these items. It was determined that in fact they were not notable outside of the film itself, and thus were all redirected to the film article. The existence of a single source giving a tenuous and insufficient claim to notability most certainly does not mean that "deletion should not even be remotely considered". --IllaZilla (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Powered exoskeletons in fiction, which needs sourcing itself. The power loader isn't independently notable, despite the burst of news stories about the new Japanese power loader. I couldn't find anything else that discussing it in more than passing. Fences&Windows 00:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  There's currently no article at Power loader, so I don't see the point in leaving Power loader (Aliens) as the redirect. The better alternative would be to delete Power loader (Aliens) and create Power loader as a redirect to Powered exoskeletons in fiction. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:15, 17 November 2009 (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.