Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stasis (fiction)


 * 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 no consensus. No consensus for a specific outcome has emerged. Further discussion about the article can continue on its talk page. North America1000 00:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Stasis (fiction)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:CONTENTFORK of Suspended animation in fiction. Entirely WP:OR save for one primary, not secondary source. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect and merge into Suspended animation in fiction; no need for two articles on the same concept, and this one doesn't appear to be grounded in any sources. Honestly, both of the articles are pretty poorly sourced, and are mostly a list of times stasis/suspended animation appears in fiction, but there are at least secondary sources for the latter. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect and merge per Cymru.lass. SemiHypercube ✎ 19:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Stasis fields are not the same as suspended animation.  For example, they can be used to hold objects not people.  Anyway, it's easy to find sources such as this or the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. Andrew D. (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Andrew Davidson. Suspending time and suspending biological processes are not the same thing as far as I can see. James500 (talk) 05:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. &#x222F; WBG</b> converse 12:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Andrew Davidson - the CONTENTFORK argument is clearly unreasonable, given the multiple distinct uses stasis field has (not merely "suspended animation for objects"), and provided sourcing. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.