| Revision as of 21:06, 26 July 2022 editLuckyLouie (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers27,103 edits →Time viewer: the src← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:14, 26 July 2022 edit undoTompaDompa (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users40,665 edits Reply.Tag: 2017 wikitext editorNext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| *<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the ]. ] (]) 18:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)</small> | *<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the ]. ] (]) 18:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)</small> | ||
| *'''Keep''' '']'' is certainly a ] for science fiction concepts, and even if it weren't ] (who wrote the entry in question, see ) is a subject-matter expert. The concept also gets an entry in '''' as well as a page and a half in ''''. So this is clearly notable. I'll start rewriting it as a proper prose article about the topic shortly. ] (]) 19:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' '']'' is certainly a ] for science fiction concepts, and even if it weren't ] (who wrote the entry in question, see ) is a subject-matter expert. The concept also gets an entry in '''' as well as a page and a half in ''''. So this is clearly notable. I'll start rewriting it as a proper prose article about the topic shortly. ] (]) 19:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC) | ||
| ** '''Comment''' I'm always cautious about an edit that cuts an article down to a ] without discussion. Your ] cuts are taken in ] and I agree with them, but I'm left with something that would be redirected to ], and it feels close enough to deletion that a discussion felt like a better idea. Thanks for attempting a ], and an expansion might address the AFD issues, or at least get it into a mergeable state. Just remember that notability calls for ] sources, not ]. ] (]) 20:34, 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) | ||
Revision as of 21:14, 26 July 2022
Time viewer
New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- How to contribute
- Introduction to deletion process
- Guide to deletion (glossary)
- Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction is certainly a WP:Reliable source for science fiction concepts, and even if it weren't David Langford (who wrote the entry in question, see here) is a subject-matter expert. The concept also gets an entry in Brave New Words as well as a page and a half in All the Wonder that Would Be: Exploring Past Notions of the Future. So this is clearly notable. I'll start rewriting it as a proper prose article about the topic shortly. TompaDompa (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I'm always cautious about an edit that cuts an article down to a one line WP:DICTDEF without discussion. Your WP:BOLD cuts are taken in good faith and I agree with them, but I'm left with something that would be redirected to time travel, and it feels close enough to deletion that a discussion felt like a better idea. Thanks for attempting a WP:TNT, and an expansion might address the AFD issues, or at least get it into a mergeable state. Just remember that notability calls for secondary sources, not WP:TERTIARY. Jontesta (talk) 20:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think it's safe to say that this isn't my first rodeo. See WP:Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Earth in science fiction (2nd nomination), WP:Articles for deletion/Space stations and habitats in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Supernovae in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Neptune in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Genies in popular culture (2nd nomination), WP:Articles for deletion/Battle of Thermopylae in popular culture, and WP:Articles for deletion/Loch Ness Monster in popular culture (2nd nomination) 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 WT:Notability/Archive 73#Tertiary sources. 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. TompaDompa (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I'm always cautious about an edit that cuts an article down to a one line WP:DICTDEF without discussion. Your WP:BOLD cuts are taken in good faith and I agree with them, but I'm left with something that would be redirected to time travel, and it feels close enough to deletion that a discussion felt like a better idea. Thanks for attempting a WP:TNT, and an expansion might address the AFD issues, or at least get it into a mergeable state. Just remember that notability calls for secondary sources, not WP:TERTIARY. Jontesta (talk) 20:34, 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 time machine, or if a literary context is the primary focus, List of time travel in fiction. If real life claims of time viewing are the focus, it could be a subsection of Time travel claims and urban legends. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)