Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wormholes 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Wormholes in fiction

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Example farm, what few citations exist (six out of scores of examples) do not show notability of the examples or their relation to the topic of wormholes. IsaacAA (talk) 22:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and convert: This page should be made into a "List of wormholes in fiction" page. It also should be expanded greatly. Charlotte Allison (Allen/Morriswa) (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This would require removing all the unsourced information, leaving... nothing. I've checked the six citations and none of them are about the significance of the fictional work in relation to wormholes. An example of a good citation would be like these, where the significance of the work in relation to the subject of the article is outlined. Citations that only mention the work or that it touches the subject of the article would be inadequate under the list selection criteria, effectively creating an unlimited unencyclopedic list. In this regard, most of the lists on Template:Astronomical locations in fiction should be deleted. IsaacAA (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Wormholes are a staple of fictional interstellar travel. Also, like synopses of fiction, entries don't need citations; the works themselves suffice. However, some of the entries should be deleted, as they constitute OR, e.g. E.E. Doc Smith's "hyper-spatial tubes", Dan Simmon's Farcaster. Just because they produce similar results doesn't mean they use the same mechanisms. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Stand alone lists "feature little or no prose in their article body" - a style this article does not follow - and the notability of the topic "wormholes in fiction" needs to be verifiable through the lead section. All the prose will have to be removed and only examples with established notability through an existing article or a citation should be listed, and the notability of the set as a whole needs to be cited. Be bold! Many other such lists need the same overhaul. IsaacAA (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This should be either a proper article or a proper stand-alone list. As pointed out above, its current contents are most suited to a list, given proper pruning.  Still ... there is more than enough information, much of it buried in the existing article, for an actual article on the concept of "wormholes in fiction" in addition to a stand-alone list.  Whether anyone is up to building such an article is, of course, another matter. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Agreed, this is clearly a list-class article and it looks like most of the entries refer back to other WP articles, satisfying the basic criterion for a WP:SAL standalone list type of article. I also agree with Clarityfiend that the OR entries should go. I'm happy with a move to "List of..." to make its listiness more explicit, if the consensus is to do so. I have changed all three wikiproject ratings in the article to "list class" --Mark viking (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, Listify, and trim I agree it's an example farm now, and should probably be trimmed by a good bit. (For a specific example, I think I'm the resident expert on Babylon 5, and disagree that jump points or jump gates were ever characterized in any RS as wormholes)  But there is fundamentally no problem here that can't be saved by regular editing, including moving to a new title.  There's nothing fundamentally wrong here that this couldn't eventually be a Featured List... except that it would take a LOT of work. Jclemens (talk) 07:17, 11 July 2015 (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.