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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plasma 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)

Basically, I asked for references on the article's talk page but none came.

The whole thing looks like a hoax, though it might just be something real inflated to the extreme, it is just hard to know. As I see it, there are two kinds of "plasma weapons" out there: stuff which relies on lasers, that are themselves created by plasma, which are well documented but not really "plasma weapons", and stuff from Star Wars with no serious evidence of existence ("PEP" or pulsed energy projectiles). I hence recommend to delete the thing - unless evidence appears now, it just fails WP:V. Tigraan (talk) 09:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'll have a pole around and see if it's main claim of plasma weapons research at Boeing is supported by anything or just someone daydreaming Plasma weapon (fiction) into real life. There's a couple of other technologies mentioned that are more solid and have cites but don't really seem to be "Plasma weapons" as such. Artw (talk) 13:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pulsed energy projectile has it's own page and might make a good redirect target, however that page has issues of it's own. Artw (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Boeing considers feasibility of plasma-based weapons could be a source, however it's pretty speculative and it's author is Nick Cook, who later went on to write about how the US was basing it's defence research on captured Nazi UFO technology. Artw (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There have been serious attempts such as the Shiva Star and we have related technologies such as the H-bomb and plasma torch. It would be silly to have just the title plasma weapon (fiction) without having this one as a high-level summary to point the reader in appropriate directions. Andrew D. (talk) 18:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might be on to something if you can find some solid cites for MARAUDER, which is linked off of Shiva Star. Artw (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator (partly in answer to Andrew D.): the page plasma weapon (fiction) would need to be taken care of if this AfD ends up deleting plasma weapon, but it should bear no weight on the decision at hand. If Andrew D.'s point is that the page should be kept, but filled with entirely different content imported mostly from the "(fiction)" page, I think deletion and recreation is the cleanest way to do it, unless some guideline I ignore states otherwise.

H-bomb is only loosely related, as is every stuff from physics that involves plasma, as far as I can tell - as I wrote, everything that involves plasma is not a "plasma weapon". The plasma torch is not a weapon.

The "serious attempts" such as MARAUDER are the ones that could make it a real article, but I am not sure this was intended to be a weapon. The article does not claim so although it somewhat implies it, and the sources do not say so. I am ready to believe there has been funding into plasma weapons, but if such research failed to produce a working prototype, or that such information is unavailable because it is classified and nothing leaked, it does not seem to deserve an article.Tigraan (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect to Plasma weapon (fiction). Apart from topics that we already have articles on (like Pulsed energy projectile, Particle-beam weapon, and Plasma weapon (fiction)), there is no actual thing here for the article to be about. -- 120.17.51.232 (talk) 23:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It doesn't look like sources that could save this article can be found. I suggest it be deleted, the article on fictional plasma weapons moved to it's location, and then of any real world examples turn up they can be appended to the bottom of that. Artw (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2015 (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.