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 Yasht101 11:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Electromagnetic weapon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

WP:NOR All the content that isn't unsourced nonsense is reproduced at Directed-energy weapon and other pages, most of the edits are made by 1 or 2 users, and an attempt to remove said unsourced information was reverted without any sources being added. Also, some of the sources are deliberately misleading, for example one that references a study of using an MRI to examine brain activity patterns included in an article suggesting they can influence brain activity Cutoffyourjib (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)— Cutoffyourjib (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

When I first saw this article months ago, there were quotes about the weapon's potential uses "harassing a person of interest" and something to the effect of causing a public speaker to lose credibility by inciting a panic attack during a speech that were taken directly from an FBI report that had been made public under the freedom of information act. Since then, the link to the report has been deleted and replaced with conspiracy theory site links and the page has been cited for deletion. If there was an original legitimate link in the history log, I suggest the page remain and use this own pages edit history as a source if the original source has been made unavailable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.49.192 (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete This is a mix of stuff covered better in other articles and paranoid ranting about mind-control rays. lws (talk) 06:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The topic is notable; for example, see Electromagnetic weapons in The Economist or this book published by Harvard University Press. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 22:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

That Economist article, like this page, is completely unsourced, and doesn't even have an author attached to it. And it's exactly the kind of baseless speculation that needs to be kept out of something that is supposed to be an encyclopedia. The article Directed-energy weapon needs editing, or perhaps expansion, this one just needs deleting.

The Economist is quite reputable and just doesn't give authors a byline as a matter of editorial style. The article contains several sources and so the assertion that it doesn't is a blatant falsehood. And you say nothing of the HUP book which is quite substantial. Warden (talk) 08:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Economist is considered a reliable source. Dream Focus 09:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect (and merge if necessary) to Directed-energy weapon. We don't need two articles covering the same subject. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Different thing. There are many types of directed energy weapons. They'd not all fit on one page. Dream Focus 09:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are many types of electromagnetic weapons too, including lasers, masers, emp devices, dazzlers (all of which use part of the electromagnetic spectrum). If this page was properly expanded to include them, it would be a copy of the directed energy weapons page and need to be merged anyways — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cutoffyourjib (talk • contribs) 16:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Its a real thing, and it gets coverage. The American military spent 40 million dollars on one electromagnetic weapon, as reported by the New York Times. [1]. Other news results are out there. Dream Focus 09:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Directed-energy weapons and Electromagnetic weapons are not the same, although there is a degree of overlap. See also electromagnetic pulse. My very best wishes (talk) 04:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and overhaul I agree with Warden and My very best wishes, Electromagnetic weapons are quite obviously possible, and there are different types such as the aforementioned EMP and more common Laser, and in Electronic warfare, ECM and ECCM should also be considered as weapons. Since the nature of the weapons are not necessarily directional (like EMP, ECM), while Directed-energy weapons are not necessarily electromagnetic in nature(like particle beams or sonic weapons), they should not be merged. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 07:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. "The Economist is considered a reliable source." When it comes to energy weapons? No way. Reliability is to be judged by topic. IGN may be a good source when it comes to video games, including those featuring energy weapons. but it would be a poor source for accurate info on real-world weapons. Using the same logic, The Economist is far more reliable WRT economy than anywhere else. - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 08:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No-one has given any particular fact in the Economist article which is incorrect. This is obviously an active field of R&D which is subject to both hype and military security and so the topic is bound to be somewhat hazy. The Economist piece seems to be a general review of the field from sources such as Aviation Week. While particular details may be debatable, the work establishes the notability of the topic beyond any reasonable doubt. Thrashing out the fine details is then a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Warden (talk) 09:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Errors in the Economist article: AESA RADAR's cannot shoot down missiles; their power outputs are similar to older phased array radars, the Growler cannot (despite a weasely use of the word probably) shoot down planes with its ECM pods, military equipment is already significantly hardened against the entire spectrum of EM radiation to function in a post nuclear blast environment, and in fact most military vehicles, being big blocks of steel already work quite well as their own faraday cages... anyone else find ones I missed?Cutoffyourjib (talk) 02:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Boy does the article need a rewrite. But the topic in and of itself is good. Deletion should only be considered as a last resort. - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 08:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, In AfDs, users should discuss about the article's notability, not purely about the quality of the article being bad. Of course a poorly written article with little source is usually not notable, but this topic quite obviously is.
• Reluctant Keep but it needs a lot of work and removal of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH that's now included in sections Pandora and Ethical considerations until WP:RS are provided. In present form, the article isn't encyclopedic but the topic is notable. DocTree (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:42, 5 May 2012 (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.