Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arc reactor

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 the page was merged into Iron Man's armor and made into a disambig page. Non-admin closure. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arc reactor

I am quite sure that a single invention of a fictional character neither deserves an article nor has any independent, reliable source (per WP:N). Goochelaar (talk) 20:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Borghuman) Look, my opinion is that pop culture has just as much relevance on here to describe fictitious things to let people know that they are fictitious and explain what in the world such well-known terms are as anything real. Wikipedia is about preserving humanity, in all its respects. Just as Klingons and Jedi are on Wikipedia, so should the Arc reactor be. HOWEVER, things like this should be linked to their master articles, and in this case "Iron Man," like this one is at the bottom of the article. I would propose that as a new Wikipedia policy, if it is not already encompassed by another.

Merge into Iron Man's armor, as it isn't notable enough to be its on (and will probably fail to have reliable sources. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect Per Patar knight. ~~Also, just a note that there is currently not an AfD tag on the page and I can't find any record of one in the page history.~~ Beeblbrox (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was fast. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also Merge/Redirect per Patar knight. --Kgaughan (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A Google search seems to indicate that there is something non-fictional called an "arc reactor." I can't wade through that many results and that much jargon, so I have no idea what it is; any engineers around? AnturiaethwrTalk 21:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)s[reply]

Excluding patent applications, the first relevant hit is [1] which appears to refer to plasma arc waste disposal. Emurphy42 (talk) 04:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Before merging, should this be the decision of the closing admin, some sources are in order (even primary ones, i.e. comics issues). I have seen the movie, and the reactors described are those seen in the movie. Are they the same for the comics? And if so, for which one(s) of the dozens of armors described in Iron Man's armor? Goochelaar (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per the reasoning given by other users. —Lowellian (reply) 06:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect If the arc reactor has it's own article, then we need one for Spider Man's web shooters, one for Wolverine's claws, one for the Green Arrow's bow... I'm all for having the arc reactor explained somewhere, but it just fits in with the Iron Man's armor page. And as noted earlier, you have the comic books to deal with, which don't use the term Arc Reactor to my knowledge (but we'll need an Iron Man fan to confirm that). It keeps him alive, so it's notable, but really, it simply doesn't need it's own page. Looking at the page for the armor, the pacemaker used there is already described for every version, but the live-action film one is scant on details. This article should be merged there, as it's a fairly big part of the final fight in the film. -Skorpus McGee (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per above. Truly does not need a page of its own. VikÞor | Talk 22:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete. Thisis almost inevitable fancruft right after release. ThuranX (talk) 23:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the first section with a page related to the movie, and just delete the last section. The last section is either pure, baseless speculation or an unreferenced excerpt from a bad sci-fi script. Nomographer (talk) 04:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable fancruft. -Seidenstud (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The arc reactor was a major part of the plot of Iron Man. The article is also thorough in description. The article can be improved; let it. -- Voldemore (talk) 03:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It may have been an important part of the movie, but that means it's worth talking about in the movie article or armour article rather than having its own page. It only really become notable enough to justify an independent article if it's a critical part of the overarching mythos, just as the suits are. Regardless, it's been merged with the cruft taken out and the language improved and a disambiguation page put in its place. BTW, please take more care when you go reformatting an article. --Kgaughan (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Remember that the Arc Reactor in and of itself is nothing more than a simple plot device. I don't doubt that it's notable, as it does indeed drive a lot of events in the film (the scene where the main villain incapacitates Stark and steals it is a turning point), but a separate article is overkill when there is already a well-maintained page for Iron Man's armor. It is deserving of a sentence or two in the armor page, and all the necessary mentions in the page for the film itself. That covers what it is, and how it was used. -Skorpus McGee (talk) 16:00, 6 May 2008 (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.