Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time viewer

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)[reply]

Time viewer

[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)

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 Wikipedia article. Jontesta (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
Comment This could go a couple ways. If a time viewer is, as one source puts it [1], "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)[reply]
Merge to Time travel 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. TTN (talk) 22:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine now. TTN (talk) 21:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has been significantly rewritten since nomination and many of the above comments. I added the Category:Fictional technology at bottom. 5Q5|^✉ 11:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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 WP:RELIABLE. Even so, it's a WP:TERTIARY source and brings together several WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS from several entries, which doesn't meet the requirement of WP:SIGCOV from reliable secondary sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As promised, I've rewritten the article in prose form and expanded it significantly (nominated version vs. current version). 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 Stephen Baxter published in Foundation in 2000, all about time viewers. There is also an extended discussion of time viewers on pages 57–60 of Time Machines: Time Travel in Physics, Metaphysics, and Science Fiction by Paul J. Nahin. I don't think it can be seriously disputed that this topic has the WP:Significant coverage required to meet WP:GNG. To me it's also pretty clear that this shouldn't be merged, though using WP:Summary style at e.g. Time travel in fiction in addition to this article is of course always an option. I invite Jontesta, LuckyLouie, TTN, and Shooterwalker to take another look. TompaDompa (talk) 02:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:HEY. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:51, 2 August 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.