Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subspace (Star Trek) (2nd nomination)


 * 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 to delete. There is a consensus to merge but no consensus for a target. That can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Subspace (Star Trek)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This remains a stub of plot summary. Re-read PoST this winter and there's not much more than fleeting references to this domain. Topic fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:RS. --EEMIV (talk) 12:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to Hyperspace (science fiction). Similar concept. We need RS's to improve the blurb, but I think the concept itself is notable enough to have its own section in Hyperspace (science fiction). Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The OED has an entry for this with usage going back to 1956 (which is well before Star Trek).  The article already indicates that subspace is used widely in other SF works and so there is good scope for generalising this concept, much as is done with hyperspace, the fourth dimension, &c.  This is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion.  And there are, of course, entire books about this stuff such as The Physics of Star Trek, The World of Star Trek, The Star Trek Encyclopedia, The Guide to Writing Fantasy and Science Fiction, &c. Warden (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The non-Trek-related subject is already sufficiently covered and unrelated to the topic up for deletion (see subspace (disambiguation) and shouldn't be a consideration re. this article's notability. The subject is already sufficiently covered at Hyperspace (science fiction), and content at this article is a) redundant to content there and b) not appropriate cited, i.e. no content merge is warranted. I reread one of the suggested works this winter and its coverage is fleeting. STE offers a mostly in-universe treatment (in the same vein at the STTNG Technical Manual). World of ST and Guide to Writing F&SF mention the subject in passing twice and once, respectively, according to a Google Books search. As with the previous AfD ~three years ago, "there are no specific citations of, say, links to or pagenumbers in works where this subject is discussed in any detail" -- either in this discussion (so far) or from work on the article itself. --EEMIV (talk) 16:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to Hyperspace (science fiction) or Physics and Star Trek. 65.94.44.141 (talk) 04:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to Warp drive (Star Trek) rather than either of the two proposed above. --Martin Wisse (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge: The Star Trek subspace as an individual subject does not meet the general notability guideline since there are no reliable secondary sources that cover the topic. Lacking these sources, the subject can only be a plot-only description of a fictional work, material not appropiate for Wikipedia. The text of the article itself has only one reference to a primary source, which doesn't even talk about subspace directly, and, outside of that, the rest of the content appears to be to be original research by synthesis. Since the topic is already covered there, a merge to Hyperspace (science fiction) is an acceptable outcome only if the content can be sourced and can provide something relevant and different from what's already there. Jfgslo (talk) 13:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * delete or merge: I don't see why we create two articles about a real world concept just because it also appears in fiction. This is no different from "Human being (The Simpsons)" or "America (The Cosby Show)". There may be features in the fictional universe that distinguish them from the real one. But you can see how it becomes untenable and indiscriminate. Regardless, there is limited coverage in independent sources to justify this article, according to the general notability guideline. 74.198.9.247 (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC) — 74.198.9.247 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep Per Colonel Warden, this topic is widely used in science fiction, but it is primarily associated with Star Trek. There are entire books written about subspace. Hyperspace (science fiction) is a completely different entity and it would be inappropriate to merge the two together. Alpha Quadrant    talk    03:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Colonel Warden's excellent reasoning.   ArcAngel    (talk) ) 21:15, 7 June 2011 (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.