Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronovisor

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2022 July 15.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 delete. Can be redirected to time viewer if somebody writes it up there (with sources). Sandstein 09:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chronovisor

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research. Appears in a single source based on a single author. The rest is uncited speculation. Jontesta (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be "non-fiction" as in nonsense. Artw (talk) 15:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Artw (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: there are substantial sources from within the fringe space (e.g. the two books [1] [2]) and from without [3] (free copy at [4]). – Uanfala (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to time viewer. There simply isn't enough reliable documentation available to warrant expounding upon the topic at such length. I did like this description of the book that is currently the article's main source: Krassa's book will appeal most strongly to the highly gullible. XOR'easter (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we redirect it, the article we redirect it to should mention it, but we have no reliable source for such a mention. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the link I provided is reliable enough for pointing out the (obvious) similarity of the claim to the fictional concept. XOR'easter (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. de:Peter Krassa is the opposite of a reliable source. He wrote nothing but fantasy camouflaged as non-fiction. The publisher, "New Paradigm Books", has hardly any Google hits, and they do not seem to have any quality criteria. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. It's a bit unclear to me if the references are reliabe (see HG's cricism of Krassa just above). Time viewer mentions this with "citation needed" and could benefit from a merge IF this is not a hoax. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, no-one is suggesting that Krassa should be used a source, I linked it as an example – one of 3 so far – of a fringe book dedicated to this topic. Reliable sources also exist. I'll repeat my last link, which is: Ladous, Régis. "Voix et Images d’ailleurs: Les Deux Fables de Dom Ernetti." Ethnologie Française 33, no. 4 (2003): 601–9. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40990619. – Uanfala (talk) 11:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Uanfala Since this is non-English, potentially paywalled PDF (although, Wikipedia Library), could you be kind enough describe how the coverage of the topic within meets WP:SIGCOV? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's also an openly available copy online, repeating the link to it: [5]. – Uanfala (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Uanfala Thanks. From what I see (MT fortunately works, since it's an html), that article treats Krassa as a serious source, and engages with it. Nonetheless it seems that the article is not seeing a difference between a "chronovisor" and the "time viewer" (ex. it discusses Aasimov's "The Dead Past" (1956), also mentioned in our article on time viewer). I am increasingly supportive of merger, also given the terrible state of the time viewer article (both articles may merit WP:TNTing and restubbing based on the article you found which indeed seems like a solid source to rescue something from this mess). But I sincerely doubt we need two articles on what are, in essence, very similar sci-fi gadgets. Chronovisor may merit a section in the time viewer article, fine, but the case for a stand-alone article is weak. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to time viewer. Not enough coverage in WP:FRIND sources to justify a stand alone article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, but if you do delete and redirect I just added a little additional material at time viewer to help any editor begin a merge there, maybe as a new section or subsection. While I was looking for acceptable English mainstream sources I found that the Chronovisor was used as the basis for a question (pdf link) in the 2022 International Collegiate Programming Contest in Germany. 5Q5|^✉ 11:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources here are either unreliable or unsubstantial, if not both. Does not meet the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The closure is being discussed at User talk:Sandstein#Chronovisor. – Uanfala (talk) 10:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]