Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Time viewer: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:15, 26 July 2022 editTTN (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users58,138 edits Time viewer← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:16, 2 August 2022 edit undoDevonian Wombat (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers30,072 edits Time viewer: Closed as keep (XFDcloser
(7 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate afd vfd xfd-closed archived" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
===]===
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ] or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|F}}
<!--Template:Afd top


Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was '''keep'''. There is consensus that the added sources are sufficient to showcase notability. <small>]</small> ] (]) 23:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
===]===
<noinclude>{{AFD help}}</noinclude> <noinclude>{{AFD help}}</noinclude>
:{{la|1=Time viewer}} – (<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude> | ]) :{{la|1=Time viewer}} – (<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude> | ])
Line 11: Line 16:
***I think it's safe to say that this isn't my first rodeo. See ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ] for other articles I've rewritten in prose form during AfD discussions. As for tertiary sources and notability, there was a discussion on that topic about a year ago that can now be found at ]. Anyway, I'll see how much I can expand it. Since the entry in ''The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction'' is roughly 1400 words and the section in ''All the Wonder that Would Be: Exploring Past Notions of the Future'' is roughly 800 words, I think this could work as a stand-alone article. I might change my mind and prefer merging it elsewhere when I'm done expanding. ] (]) 21:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC) ***I think it's safe to say that this isn't my first rodeo. See ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ] for other articles I've rewritten in prose form during AfD discussions. As for tertiary sources and notability, there was a discussion on that topic about a year ago that can now be found at ]. Anyway, I'll see how much I can expand it. Since the entry in ''The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction'' is roughly 1400 words and the section in ''All the Wonder that Would Be: Exploring Past Notions of the Future'' is roughly 800 words, I think this could work as a stand-alone article. I might change my mind and prefer merging it elsewhere when I'm done expanding. ] (]) 21:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' This could go a couple ways. If a time viewer is, as one source puts it , "a passive form of time machine" it could be redirected to become a subsection of ], or if a literary context is the primary focus, ]. If real life claims of time viewing are the focus, it could be a subsection of ]. ] (]) 21:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC) *'''Comment''' This could go a couple ways. If a time viewer is, as one source puts it , "a passive form of time machine" it could be redirected to become a subsection of ], or if a literary context is the primary focus, ]. If real life claims of time viewing are the focus, it could be a subsection of ]. ] (]) 21:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' to ] or another more suitable article, unless the rewrite proves to be substantial enough to make a merge not needed. Currently too small to need to exist on its own. ] (]) 22:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC) *<s>'''Merge''' to ] or another more suitable article, unless the rewrite proves to be substantial enough to make a merge not needed. Currently too small to need to exist on its own. ] (]) 22:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)</s>
:*Seems fine now. ] (]) 21:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. The article has been significantly rewritten since nomination and many of the above comments. I added the Category:Fictional technology at bottom. <span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 4px 4px 4px;padding:1px 4px 0px 4px;">]&#124;]</span> 11:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' per TTN. The rewrite is an improvement. But it's all cited to the same source, and I'm not sure that it's ]. Even so, it's a ] source and brings together several ] from several entries, which doesn't meet the requirement of ] from reliable secondary sources. ] (]) 16:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' As promised, I've rewritten the article in prose form and expanded it significantly ( vs. ). Besides the sources I mentioned above, the principal source I've used is "The Technology of Omniscience: Past Viewers in Science Fiction"–a 10-page, 4,700-word essay by science fiction author ] published in '']'' in 2000, all about time viewers. There is also an extended discussion of time viewers on pages 57–60 of '''' by ]. I don't think it can be seriously disputed that this topic has the ] required to meet ]. To me it's also pretty clear that this shouldn't be merged, though using ] at e.g. ] in addition to this article is of course always an option. I invite {{u|Jontesta}}, {{u|LuckyLouie}}, {{u|TTN}}, and {{u|Shooterwalker}} to take another look. ] (]) 02:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

:*'''Keep''' in the newly rewritten form. Effectively, my vote is "delete" the old version per TNT (per reasons outlined by the nom applicable to the nominated version), with no prejudice to a rewrite, but with acknowledgement that the rewrite is already happening. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 09:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

* '''Keep''' as newly rewritten and extensively sourced by TompaDompa. A little too many redlinks for my taste, but it's now a good article on a demonstrably notable topic. ] (]) 20:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Per ]. ] (]) 14:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
{{clear}}
:''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 ] or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''<!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>

Latest revision as of 23:16, 2 August 2022

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. There is consensus that the added sources are sufficient to showcase notability. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Time viewer

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Time viewer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Couldn't find reliable secondary sources with WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:NOTABILITY guideline. There aren't reliable references to the concept of a "time viewer", making me concerned that this is an WP:OR compilation of concepts that an editor is subjectively comparing. (For example, a trivial mention from NASA that is referring to something very different from what the article purports to be about.) The only source is another online encyclopedia which isn't a reliable secondary source, and may be circularly pulling material from this WP:OR Misplaced Pages article. Jontesta (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2022 (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.