Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teleportation in 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   keep. Overall, consensus supports a result of Keep for this discussion, after a period of preponderance from the community. In addition, consensus appears to have established that the subject matter has received significant coverage in secondary sources satisfying both WP:RS and WP:V. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Teleportation in fiction

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This list of fancruft was removed from Teleportation as non-notable. As per usual with "in popular culture" sections, this is a list of minor references to teleportation in fictional works, and as mentioned, this unreferenced list was already removed once from Teleportation. The only salvagable content from this article already exists on Teleportation, and no need to create a separate article to enshrine a list of pointless trivia. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete The topic is clearly notable (e.g. 1,2, 3) but this is not an article with salvageable content - it would be properly entitled List of instances of teleportation in fiction, and as such it would be best to delete it so a proper article on the subject may be written at some future date. --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a nonsensical vote. If it's notable, it's salvageable, and we don't throw away articles on notable topics when they can be improved through regular editing. Jclemens (talk) 01:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And what we are saying is that a list of references to teleportation in fiction is non-notable. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Which is irrelevant, since per WP:NNC, individual entries in a notable topic (which this is) need not be themselves notable. I've posed a more interesting question for you below, BTW. Jclemens (talk) 02:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge - Summarize some of the content using the reliable sources available, and don't write it as a list, but prose. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It can all be summarized by saying, "Teleportation is often used as a plot device in fictional works," and leaving it at that. We can definitely find a source somewhere to verify that.  No need to list every instance of teleportation that's ever happened, or even a summary of such.  One sentence, and it's already there, and it's sourced, even (lookit that!).  SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment and Keep - This article is the result of a content dispute between editors with no consensus reached on if the list should be retained in the Teleportation article. I don't have time tonight to sort out the edit histories and players but see List of fiction containing teleportation, Teleportation in fiction, and Teleportation. These have forked, merged, moved, etc. over time. I'm inclined to go with a Keep as this article clearly qualifies as a WP:LIST as the subject of teleportation itself is notable and nearly all of the items in the list are notable subjects. While the list is sorely in need of citations that itself is not grounds for deletion. One concern is that I read over the list and none of the items seemed worthwhile for inclusion in the new Teleportation article. In other words, none of the items have been judged as noteworthy examples of teleportation by the author, television, or publishing communities. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 07:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "In other words, none of the items have been judged as noteworthy examples of teleportation by the author, television, or publishing communities." In other words, no third-party sources to verify that notability.  Best argument for deletion I've seen all day!  SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be an argument for deletion if Wikipedia's standards for notability were higher. I had looked at the list for examples of recognition by peers as that would pretty much slam dunk that item as useful for the current stripped down teleportation article. There were none but I saw the list as a keep as most of the list is examples of the use of teleportation in notable fiction or shows. Something that tilts towards delete is that a spot check of the supporting articled for various items found a number that did not mention of the teleportation aspect in that article implying that it was not an important plot device for that story. Thus the list could use some weeding but I still don't see a case for full deletion. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 02:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Even lists must comply to the notability guideline which states that "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed  as a group or set by independent reliable sources", and I see no reliable source whatsoever that has discussed the topic of teleportation in fiction. And to answer to Marc Kupper, no, the items in the list, that is, "teleportation in Aladdin/The Fly/Harry Potter/etc" are not notable topics, even if they are tied to one generally notable topic. I remind you that notability is not inherited.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - A totally unsourced list of trivia. Keep only the sourced material and you'll have an empty article. Skippydo (talk) 18:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep For the n+1th time, "X in fiction" is discriminate not indiscriminate. Topic is notable since it's discussed in the specific context of fiction in tons of places, here for just one example, all entries are verifiable to primary sources, and many of the larger ones are verifiable to secondary sources, too.  I am entirely baffled why "teleportation" does not reference "teleportation in fiction" at all.  To the best of my knowledge, all teleportation of anything larger than a photon is either theoretical or fictional. Jclemens (talk) 01:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Question to nom: Did you attempt to source any of the statements included here, per WP:BEFORE? I'm sure most of us are familiar with at least one or two of these elements, which begs the question: how can you authoritatively state it's not salvageable, when it's obvious that some of what's unsourced is trivial to source?  Consider Teleportation in fiction, for example. Not currently sourced, but consider this Google books search, or this Google Scholar search. Trivial searches to execute, results replete with good sources, and yet somehow not even attempted.  Why? Jclemens (talk) 01:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  —Jclemens (talk) 01:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Teleportation is a fictional concept, at least at this point. The article already contains a sourced statement to that effect.  Therefore we don't need a large list of trivia showing every instance where some author has included teleportation in their work.  Not necessary, and quite unencyclopedic.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And you're asserting that this couldn't be fixed by regular editing? I find that implausible.  Certianly, unsourceable things can be trimmed, but Star Trek is far from alone where the instantaneous travel aspect has garnered substantial commentary.  You're asserting that a list isn't needed... but this isn't entitled "list of every instance of fictional teleportation" nor need it be that encompassing to deal with the topic in an encyclopedic manner. Jclemens (talk) 02:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Give it a try, then. So far, the only thing that's been significantly changed since the deletion nomination is the addition of more crap like what is already in there.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * For clarification: by "give it a try" are you intending to strike your nomination? Jclemens (talk) 13:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope! The clock is ticking.  Get cracking if you want to save this mess.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Then let the record show that you have admitted that the article can be corrected through regular editing, and that the closing admin should more properly classify your vote as keep per the WP:ATD policy: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion". Of course, you're welcome to help improve the article, even though WP:BEFORE is supposed to be done by the nominator before the nomination. Jclemens (talk) 02:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I said no such thing. The article is absolutely unsalvagable, and I don't see the point in arguing with you anymore.  I have asked you to go put some constructive edits on that article to match your arguments and maybe actually rescue it from deletion, and you will not do so.  If you really wanted to rescue this trainwreck, you would make time to do it.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's unsalvageable, but you expect me to try and salvage it? You are trying to argue two incompatible points of view: "It's unsalvageable" and "you need to clean it up".  If it's unsalvageable, it would be in extremely bad faith for you to suggest that I do anything to the article at all, given that it would soon be deleted and my efforts wasted.  On the other hand, if it can be cleaned up, then it's not my specific responsibility to do so, but yours to never have nominated it at all.  Either way, you lose.  The answer, of course, is that both your arguments are incorrect: it is salvageable (as several folks have kindly chimed in and helped with--the way that rescue is supposed to work) and the obligation is on the nominator to assure that repair through less drastic measures such as sourcing, cleanup, or merging are inapplicable. Jclemens (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Your proposal to wait forever for decent sources to be obtained is insufficient. If you want to set the bar at let's wait X period of time for Y citations to be obtained, then you'll eventually be proven wrong. This article is a train wreck. Skippydo (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Per WP:N "The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable." I've demonstrated that multiple, non-trivial, third party sources exist for the topic of the article, and I've included them above.  They need not actually be added to the article in any particular time frame for the article to be notable and verifiable. Jclemens (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I think he just summed his own argument up as WP:ILIKEIT. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I've demonstrated how the article meets notability and verifiability guidelines, while you have taken a more Wp:NIME approach that doesn't admit the value of the material despite its adequate sourcing. Jclemens (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Articles can meet such guidelines yet be deleted. Take CSD G11 for example, where articles may be summarily deleted if they require a "fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic". See Blow it up and start over for the benefits of such an approach to article like this.--Pontificalibus (talk) 08:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep A good article will discuss the various types of teleportation in fiction, what attempts--if any--are made to correlate those with the current state of scientific knowledge, etc. Just because the current article doesn't do all that is not a reason to delete. Matchups 02:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A good article is also not an indiscriminate collection of information, and the only criteria for being on this list is that it uses teleportation as a plot device, so we end up with a list of everyone who ever teleported somewhere in a fictional work - a mess. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently Alkivar was right when he said that 70% of our time is spent in the creation and removal of pointless pop-culture trivia sections, and that we need to look beyond our televisions. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of examples of a very common sci-fi/fantasy plot device. What's next? Red shirts in fiction? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No red shirts but Spacesuits in fiction is close. Just for amusement we have Interstellar teleporter which is similar to this list and then all of these "in fiction": Aircraft, Assassinations, Asteroids, Betelgeuse, Boston, Brighton, Ceres, CIA, Comets, Cricket, Cyborgs, Deneb, Elements, Galaxies, Genetic chimerism, Illegitimacy, Immortality, Invisibility, Jupiter's moons, Jupiter, Khazars, London, Mars, Mental illness, Mercury, Nanotechnology, Nebulae, Neptune, New Orleans, Newfoundland, Pheromones, Phobos and Deimos, PIs, Pluto, Politics, Prosthetics, Saturn's moons, Saturn, Sirius, Space elevators, Spiritualism, Succubi, Supernovae, Survivalism, Svalbard, Tachyons, Titan, Transhumanism, UFOs, Uranus, Venus, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Wolves, and Wormholes. The categories are 1810s, 1820s, 1860s, Adultery, Africa, Arctic, Atlantis, Belgium, Berlin, California, Canada, China, Cloning, Cryonics, Dinosaurs, Dyslexia, Earth, England, Eugenics, Florida, France, Holography, Incest, Italy, Japan, Jupiter, Law, Locations, London, Madrid, Magic, Mars, Mesoamerica, Monarchy, Moon, Motorcycling, Oceania, Paris, Physics, Piracy, Planets, Religion, Science, Scotland, Shapeshifting, Solar System, Spain, Sports, Terrorism, Titan, Transylvania, Venus, Wormholes. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 18:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wot? No Fiction in fiction or Kitchen sinks in fiction? We seem only to be semi-indiscriminate in our lack of discrimination. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Listing notable series that have teleportation, shows how common it is used. I added in a link to a news article about a survey in Britain where they found that many people believed what they saw in science fiction was real, one in four of them surveyed believing it was possible for humans to teleport.  All entries had verifiable evidence, found by searching Google news archive for their names and the word "teleport" or the primary sources are fine for this sort of thing as well.  Verifiability has thus been met.  I added in some news coverage of various teleportation found in fiction as well.   D r e a m Focus  16:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Notability is "significant coverage in reliable and independent sources". Since your source doesn't have anything to do with the subject, and since one source is not "significant coverage", the topic is not notable.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep -- this is precisely the specific, descriminate, list we need here, per Jclemens and Dream Focus . 17:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs)
 * Surely you kid, right? Their arguments are less than convincing.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously most people find your argument less than convincing, since most are in favor of keeping the article.  D r e a m Focus  15:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * AfDs are not votes. That there is a certain number of people "not convinced" by the rules of WP won't change anything.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep or re-merge to Teleportation. Notable subject; no reason to delete. Clean-up to remove anything that's not referenced and copy-edit to condense. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If the subject is notable, where is the coverage from independant and reliable sources ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, a specific and useful list of the appearances of teleportation in fiction. I added a reliable third party source citation for Skywarp in the Transformers TV section. Mathewignash (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Useful" is not a valid argument to keep an article.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep&mdash;This is one of those cases where a prediction of science fiction was later born out in reality, so the list provides something of an incremental history of the concept. The topic is a notable combination. I added a couple of citations. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The concept is treated in Teleportation, there is no reason to write a derivative article. I can't see why the topic would be notable since it is not sourced with reliable and independent sources.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * keep Major plot elements in notable fiction are appropriate for a list. This is the purpose of wikipedia--to provide information about things people are interested in.  DGG ( talk ) 19:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Who are you to say these plot elements are "major" ? Where are the sources for this assertion ? And no, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to "provide information about things people are interested in", but to provide information about things that have been deemed notable by reliable and independant sources.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Salvageable as a sortable list. Like all lists of this type which haven't been knocked into shape there are a lot of irrelevant entries which need pruning, but there are works of fiction which have teleportation as a major theme (The Fly and Portal for instance) which would fit in just fine. Someoneanother 23:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: There have been strong questions of sourcing raised. This is not something that gets voted away, and the comments past 13:55, 18 August 2011 all fail to effectively rebut.  Please get some sources.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aaron Brenneman (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * We have sources already. Did you read what I wrote?  Teleportation in fiction is influential enough to have convinced a significant number of people that its real.  Do you simply not like the "in fiction" articles?  Extraterrestrials in fiction, Magic in fiction, Stars and planetary systems in fiction, Assassinations in fiction, Earth in science fiction, Mars in fiction, etc.  Its very encyclopedic to show how something notable is found in various notable media.   D r e a m Focus  14:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note, we're here to discuss the subject of the article. You don't need a reference for every single entry on a list.   D r e a m Focus  16:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There are 16 references and 50-100 entries. To be clear, do you propose to remove the unreferenced material, leave the material unreferenced, immediately find references, or something else? Skippydo (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * How is this relevant to closing the AfD? Why exactly are more sources required? --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If you search for "Teleportation" AND "science fiction" you'll find About 3,520 results in Google books and About 643 results in Google news .  If anyone thought it needed more reference to prove the notability of the subject, they can start their search there.   D r e a m Focus  17:07, 22 August 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.