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. - Glen 15:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of firearms in films[edit]

List of potentially unlimited size that would include every form of firearm ever in a film, from blunderbuss and muskets to modern machine guns, with a sub-list of each film said firearm appeared in. Delete as per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information --Allen3 ^talk 01:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Aaron 01:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Elf | Talk 01:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete though I could possibly see this as acceptable if restricted to important or significant roles in films. Like say The Mexican. FrozenPurpleCube 01:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm not arguing for the content per se. It's just that if this article (and the on concerning firearms in video games) are deleted, we will see all this information constantly placed on the articles of movies and video games mentioned. I'd rather see this information in one place rather spread all over video game/movie trivia sections. In addition to that, I think this article might start a more interesting topic "Firearms portrayal in media". —Mitaphane _talk 01:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

**Silly Semantical Nitpic There is no way this article could have the potency to become unlimited in size as it would imply there are an unlimited number of movies to draw from.—Mitaphane _talk 01:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.--TBCTaLk?!? 02:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Listcruft Bwithh 02:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Take it out back and shoot it. List is completely unmaintainable. - CheNuevara 02:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --physicq210 03:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mitaphane --UNHchabo 03:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete infinite list (sorry, Mitaphane, but come on). Danny Lilithborne 04:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A list without any useful criteria. It's not useful for navigation, can't ever been usefully complete, and just plain isn't useful for anything. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Use the Bazooka, indiscriminate collection of information. Up next, list of kitchen utensils in films. Garrett^Talk 05:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Extraordinarily crufty, so many movies have guns Firearms in them that this would be unmaintainable, unless we have people that analise movies for a living that would be willing to. :S Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 08:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Assassinate per above. MER-C 08:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Listcruft and don't bother with merging or assimilating. If the particular use of a particular firearm is notable enough to merit mention in a film's article then it will be. There is no use for such idle trivia. 205.157.110.11 10:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, next look into the other pages created for this type of things, mostly to be found in Category:In popular culture. --Deon Steyn 14:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Huge list that adds nothing to an encyclopedia. Wickethewok 18:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. Ramsquire 19:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Waaay to broad. 23skidoo 20:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Destroy per above.UberCryxic 00:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. An unpopular opinion, I can see. I don't find the topic interesting, but the work that went into it seems a shame to throw away. YechielMan 02:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Changed my mind. Actually, it's totally worthless, now that I think about it. Delete. YechielMan 02:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as cruft. —Khoikhoi 03:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment These articles were created after a few people didn't want to see information about "X in popular culture" included in firearms articles, where such a section would describe its depictions in movies and computer games. I don't support the existence of this single massive list, since it's utterly unmanagable and provides minimal information, but it would be nice to have popular culture information included back into the articles. Something like the MP5 or AK-47 could use a mention of its ubiquity in certain roles, if we can find sources to support it, while other weapons like the Beretta 93R could benefit from a mention of prominent roles, like Robocop. An indiscriminate list of every occurance is pointless, but there should be some information back in the articles, especially now that this sorry excuse is gone. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (already voted keep) In what part of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information is a sorted table of hashed entries disallowed? Many of you may find this information useless, but what about people actually looking for this? First of all, anyone who wants this information back on Wikipedia will simply add it back into the articles on those movies, games, and firearms. I don't want that, and I imagine none of you do either. I'd much rather have a sentence saying "This has been prominently shown in many films; see Article X," rather than "This has been most prominently shown in Movie X," as this invites the same kind of "list addition" as seen in WP:SPAM. I think this kind of page is necessary so that we don't end up with these huge lists on all sorts of other pages spread across Wikipedia. I know, I did a good amount of work, such as cutting down the "Popular Culture" section in Steyr AUG. This format is compact. It works. The old system did not work, and that's what we'll return to if this article is deleted. -- My other big issue: where in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents is this kind of information listed? Lists of this sort are kept elsewhere, in order to keep the information kept somewhere in a concise manner. --UNHchabo 04:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT and not meeting any of the purposes at WP:LIST; to the extent it is a valuable information source it is because it is violating the policy against original research. GRBerry 12:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What qualifies as "original research" when verifying if a firearm appears in a movie? Anyone who watches The Matrix can verify that Neo uses a Vz 61 Skorpion in the "Lobby Scene." Do we need to link to an off-site screenshot in order for this not to be "original research"? On the other hand, if this article is deleted (with none of the information copied elsewhere), then there will be no reference for someone saying "I wonder what that gun was..." --UNHchabo 06:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • From WP:NOT "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis". WP:RS says "In general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of the primary-source material." It also says "Articles related to popular culture and fiction must be backed up by reliable sources like all other articles." There is no free pass for material about films, literature, or any other readily available media, we still need sourcing. (And, in the particular example, only a gun afficianado would recognize specific weapons on sight.) GRBerry 12:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • My point with that comment was this: if anyone has the Vz 61 page open while watching the movie, they can see it's the same thing. But if someone watches the movie and wonders what it is, they can look on this page, and look through the firearms listed for The Matrix, and see that the Vz 61 is listed here. Because it's verifiable through watching the movie, must we really require screenshots, or an expert's analysis of firearms featured in the movie, to know what appeared? --UNHchabo 16:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless massively trimmed down to important appearances, per FrozenPurpleCube and Night Gyr. That James Bond uses a Walther PPK has been a plot point. That Generic Thug #7 uses a Browning rather than a Colt is no big deal. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and split into seperate articles for each firearm, or for each firearm manufacturer. Johntex\^talk 03:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Listcruft, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of info. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 05:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 16:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Philip 01:12, 25 September 2006 (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.