Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planetbuster

The article talks about a unit in the game. Though the game is no doubt famous, the unit does not have any consequence in the real world. Furthermore, any description of any unit exclusive to the game should be done in the game manual, not in an encyclopedia. __earth 07:13, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

Rename and Merge. May not be /directly/ related to the real world, but it sure is interesting, and it will have relation to future nuclear weapons. - Peter Perlsø 10:06, 2004 May 14 (UTC)

Delete: useless pseudoinformation. Another one for the fan sites. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:04, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the game might be a valid entry, but a game unit is not... jaredwf 14:40, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ ~~Delete and merge~~. Redirect and merge! Unsuitable subject but - 10 out of 10 for writing a full article though. --bodnotbod 15:17, May 9, 2004 (UTC)
- You mean redirect and merge? --Ben Brockert 02:21, May 11, 2004 (UTC)
  - Gah! --bodnotbod 09:24, May 11, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. We have many poorly-written sites related to video games with less significance than this one, and it seems like it would be difficult to merge it with the main article. Rhymeless 16:43, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
- "There are a lot of useless articles" isn't an argument for including another one. With all due respect, Wile E. Heresiarch 17:12, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also no offence, but who says they're useless? I've written papers and reports concerning video games, and there are university-level courses in marketing and design, as well as several computers courses, that focus partially or entirely on games. Personally I think that articles relating to details on video games should be under scrutiny, of course; but one shouldn't judge it simply on the criteria of "is this information useful or notable to me?", but "could this be useful to someone?" And yes, if someone was doing a report on the game, it seems like Planetbuster would be quite useful in their research. Rhymeless 17:28, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just a thought: If individual units/weapons from games get their own entries - prepare for an onslaught of disambiguity headings at the tops of articles like infantry, power plant, jeep, cavalry... I'm not much of a gamer, but the list of articles effected would, surely, be quite ludicrous. I feel this should be considered. For that reason I would strongly encourage keeping such info within the games article. Surely the lovely auto-TOC and Heading Hierarchy was created for just such lengthy offerings? --bodnotbod 20:43, May 9, 2004 (UTC)
    - In reply to Rhymeless -- the purpose of video games is to be a complete waste of time. I don't have a problem with that. However, that's not consistent with the purpose of WP. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:23, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      - Whenever I find myself describing Wikipedia to my friends, they always think it's a waste of time too. But that's not the point. Your same statement could be made for nearly anything consistent with pop culture; most television programs and motion pictures could also be considered a waste of time, do you consider articles about them to be counter-productive to WP as well? Rhymeless 01:04, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. On the one hand, I like to see an article or set of articles become a complete reference on a subject, and info on the Planetbuster is needed if we're to ever reach that goal for Alpha Centauri. On the other hand, the article, while maybe appearing well written and solid to someone who hasn't played the game, is actually highly speculative and a large portion is just a narrative of a particular scenario that could conceivably occur after the use of Planetbusters. Accuracy would require this to be much more generalized. Perhaps if the article was greatly condensed (without losing any of the real information), it could be neatly merged with Alpha Centauri. We decided to merge the article on the Mauler, the weapon from Perfect Dark, not too long ago. Everyking 18:03, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
It should at least be renamed to indicate that it refers to a game. RickK 19:44, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or merge if that's the consensus. Jgm 21:32, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
If Wiki is going to permit separate articles for all those ridiculous StarCraft units (Refinery (StarCraft), it's going to have to allow them for all game units. This discussion has gone on too long, in my estimation. bodnotbod, your dark vision is already reality. While I do not vote to delete the information in this article (and did not suggest deleting any of the thirtysome StarCraft articles), I emphatically recommend merging it into a parent article. If I wrote an article on Wheel (Lego), how long would it be before it was merged into Lego? Yet is it only my assumption that Lego wheels are far better known than StarCraft refineries? End this nonsense. Denni 01:16, 2004 May 10 (UTC)
Thank you, Denni. I couldn't agree more. Meelar 01:27, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, all of these types of articles should be merged with the parent article. Denni's example is a perfect reason why. So, merge and redirect. - Lucky 6.9 04:05, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Though I've suggested the article to be deleted initially, now I believe it should be merged with it parent article. __earth 04:40, May 10, 2004 (UTC)
Changing my vote from delete to merge. jaredwf 05:44, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge. Burgundavia 20:17, May 13, 2004 (UTC)
Merge or, alternatively, shorten to a couple of paragraphs on the concept rather than endless game implementation specifics. It's quite entertaining info, a mishmash of Gaia theory and nuclear war, but just far too long. -- EuroTom 21:50, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]