Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multiverse (Moorcock)


 * 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. Although the arguments for a merge made me think about that, I feel that the 'keep' !votes are sufficient to show that this article should be kept --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 19:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Multiverse (Moorcock)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Original research essay about an aspect of one authors books. It offers nothing to someone unfamiliar with the subject. Multiverse are used in a lot of fiction there is nothing given here that distinguishes this authors use of the subject. Ridernyc (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge with the author's article as per WP:BKD. ~ neko-chan :3 (talk) 04:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * keep Added refs, added research tag in the hope that more will be dug out. Multiverse in this sense is very much related to Moorcocks writing, though it could be argued that anyone else using the term in a similar way is just tagging along after him. Artw (talk) 07:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have any independent reliable sources to back up the rather grand claim you just made? Ridernyc (talk) 09:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Of him coining the term at least in it;s fictional sense? The ref I just added does that. And then, as the man himself puts it: "The term caught on well enough to be used for a variety of purposes in popular fiction and theoretical physics and was incorporated into the lexicon of Doctor Who", so I guess it's more his grand claim than mine. Artw (talk) 03:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The OED would appear to back him up on this. Artw (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete does not appear to have received substantial coverage from reliable sources. The claimed "refs" are passing mentions.  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, what? It's described as a major part fo his work in an encyclopedia article on him. How is that a passing mention? Artw (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Look at it this way: Marvel Universe is an acceptable article because the Marvel Universe itself has been the subject of substantial coverage. We do not have articles say, the "'Brandy and Mr. Whiskers' Universe" or the "'My Two Dads' Universe", not because we deny the existence of these fictional properties but because sources do not discuss their fictional settings in enough depth to make a standalone article appropriate. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say by being so long lasting and covering mutliple works (as shown in the refs) it's clearly closer to the former rather than the later, and as for essays, look below... Artw (talk) 17:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Yes, multiverse is used in a lot of fiction... because Moorcock pioneered the concept 40 years ago.  Adequate sourcing has already been added, but it's my firm belief there's plenty more. Jclemens (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Michael Moorcock. For his use to justify its own article, we would need multiple references showing he was the first fiction writer to use it, or show conclusively that his use inspired the use of the word in science. if, after its merged, this can be shown, then it could be broken out into its own article. for the record, i am highly opposed to the endless articles on fictional subjects that are not strongly referenced, ie, really talked about a lot in the real world. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to either Michael Moorcock or as a new section on Michael Moorcock. At first I thought this was a keep as a standalone article but independent coverage of the subject, Michael Moorcock’s Multiverse, is thin. There is passing coverage of the Multiverse as part of Moorcock biographies, use of the term “Multiverse,” sometimes with a nod to Moorcock, but people are not sitting down and creating independent treatments of “Michael Moorcock’s Multiverse.” I found the following when attempting to locate independent treatment.
 * Gardiner, Jeff, The Age of Chaos: The Multiverse of Michael Moorcock . The British Fantasy Society, 2002, ISBN 0-9538681-1-7. An excerpt is available here where it’s apparent this is a Michael Moorcock biography and does not focus on the Multiverse despite its use in the title.
 * Michael Moorcock’s Multiverse, Vertigo/DC Comics, 1999. This attempts to show the multiverse in graphic novel form and would be an example of coverage.
 * Spinrad, Norman, On Books: The Multiverse, essay in Asimov's Science Fiction, April-May 2008. While the title looks promising I do not know what this essay covers.
 * De Saille, Stevienna, A Cyberian in the Multiverse: Towards A Feminist Subject Position for Cyberspace, presented at the UK Postgraduate Conference in Gender Studies, 21-22 June 2006, University of Leeds, UK. This is an example of someone that uses the Multiverse as a conceptual idea but is not about Moorcock’s Multiverse in particular.
 * Kotani, Mari, Across the Multiverse: How Do Aliens Travel from “Divisional” Space to “Network” Space?, The Japanese Journal of American Studies, No. 13 (2002). Here’s another example of the use of the Multiverse as a conceptual idea. Moorcock is barely mentioned.
 * Davey, Ian, Cartographer of the Multiverse at http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/moorcock. Here is an example of a fan who borrows the term “Multiverse” but it's to conduct a tour of Moorcock’s work and while “Multiverse” is significant to Moorcock’s work the Multiverse itself apparently is not significant enough to have an independent essay. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 19:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment A simple Google search of the term "Who created the term multiverse" finds sources that predate Moorcock by 2 years so the science claim is refuted, Numerous sources show it was created by Andy Nimmo, then vice chairman of the British Interplanetary Society in 1960. Also simply checking the multiverse article here on the project we will find that there it has been sourced and credited to predate Moorcock by 8 years in literature also. Ridernyc (talk) 04:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The crucial thing would not be using the word Multiverse, it would be using the word multiverse to indicate a set of intersecting fictional universes. Artw (talk) 04:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Though I think it does pretty much knocks that dubious lats paragraph on the head, which I've removed. Artw (talk) 04:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Jclemens.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There seems to be enough material.    DGG ( talk ) 17:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is notable and the nomination's claim that it is OR is clearly false. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Keep' This person has a large number of articles dedicated to them and their fictional universe. A rather large number of his books have articles about them.  His multiverse is a key feature in a lot of them.  Enough valid information to fill an article, and nothing gained by deleting it, or cramming it altogether somewhere else.   D r e a m Focus  07:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.