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 delete. Daniel 03:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electromagnetic pulse in fiction[edit]

Delete - directory of unassociated items. The things on this laundry list are not related to each other by virtue of sharing to a greater or lesser degree of importance a particular plot device. "It has an EMP in it" is not a theme. Otto4711 16:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This fails the first test of this list. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 16:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a non-notable, original research magnet. Non-notable because there can never be in-depth reliable sources that discuss each of these dot points in detail, only the movie/book/game itself, so it's an indiscriminate collection of trivia. And not to mention the original research ("oh look, I saw this EMP missile in some game I played"). I oppose merging any information in the main article because the list will just grow again. This kind of stuff is not front page material. Spellcast 17:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, its not front page material. nobody is suggesting it for our main page. Not all WP content is of that 1% level. DGG (talk) 03:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is unfortunate that only a fraction of the articles here are of decent standard. Spellcast 11:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not only is this an original research magnet, trivia magnet, cruft magnet, et cetera, it also violates the very basics of our WP:FIVE pillars as well. Burntsauce 17:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because the article indicates the degree or extent of EMPs in fiction. Merging would be fine with me as well and if I have a moment, I may give a search of references, too, if that will help. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although it probably could be merged back into the Electromagnetic pulse article. As used in fiction, it's a plot device where a nuclear weapon shuts down all the machines without directly harming anybody. It's not often used, since there's not much drama in a power outage, permanent or not. Mandsford 20:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indiscriminate list of loosely associated films, TV shows, etc, that aren't any more notable for featuring EMPs in them. Crazysuit 01:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Having a similar theme or plot motive is not indiscriminate. indiscriminate means having no plausible connection--a list of every move every made is indiscriminate, as is a list of every fifth movie alphabetically. A list of every movie with a protagonist wearing a blue shirt is not exactly indiscriminate, but unimportant. thats the sort of thing which would be trivia. A device to bring about the crisis is not indiscriminate, irrelevant, or trivial. If for some of these the use was purely decorative, remove them. apparently used so much that it would be better as a separate article. DGG (talk) 03:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "What the hell are they talking about in, like every science fiction movie and TV show, when they talk about 'using the EMP'?" "Well, don't check Wikipedia!" Chubbles 08:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To expand a bit: I actually found this AfD not because I was looking at the AfD's for the day (I had been doing that earlier, and I must have missed this one), but because I was wondering what EMP meant, since I had heard of it in The Matrix and Firefly. This is a theme so prevalent in science fiction that it had to be split off from the parent article, there were so many instances. Here, again, relevant, encyclopedic information is being nominated for deletion - about a central plot device in many works of popular culture. And as long as "popular culture" continues to equal "trivia" in the minds of most editors, this will continue. Matthew Arnold smiles in his grave. Chubbles 08:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But this is trivia. Let's take an example from the article: "In the 1999 computer game FreeSpace 2, one of the weapons available to the player is an EMP missile." No-one writes about points like this anywhere and is pure original research. If this isn't trivia, I don't know what is. Something being common is no excuse to have a rogue gallery of every non-notable EMP mention ever made. Spellcast 11:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Chubbles does have a point. But citations from secondary sources would help a lot. Fosnez 10:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 11:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone wants to make it an article rather than a list. JJL 17:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well! Another of those listcruft-trivia filled articles without significant sources.--JForget 00:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commment Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of every non-notable EMP reference ever made. We are not trying to include everything that can be said about anything. The references don't have anything to do with the article info. This fails WP:ATRIV, WP:IINFO, and WP:OR horribly. Spellcast 11:21, 1 October 2007 (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.