Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xeelee technology (2nd nomination)

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 redirect to Xeelee Sequence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Xeelee technology

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

Totally unreferenced (the 4 "references" are links to other Wikipedia articles). No notability outside the Baxter's fictional universe. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect. Nothing has changed from the last AfD, and I don't see any useful sources on Google. Usually, if a topic has been covered in reliable sources, there's at least something digitized on Google Books. This is more applicable to Wikia than us. Also, the article may need to be semi-protected this time. Since it was closed as "merge" in the previous discussion, deleting it could make attribution difficult (per Wikipedia:Merge and delete). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as before. I don't see any RS dealing specifically the fictional technology, not even much secondary stuff outside ot Goodreads, etc. Even a redirect would not be compelling, except that it is needed to preserve attribution from the previous merge. --Mark viking (talk) 21:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and semi-protect per nominator and Ninja._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above; I'd agree with semi-protecting it too. Shelbystripes (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment while the first nomination statement is reasonable, the second, "No notability outside the Baxter's fictional universe." is not a reason for deletion or redirection. Notability is governed by the number and depth of independent reliable sources, and so ultimately, nothing is notable outside the sphere in which it is notable. No objection to the redirect on the basis of the first statement, however. Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as per WP:ISNOT: "Articles on fiction elements are expected to cover more about "real-world" aspects of the element, such as its development and reception, than "in-universe" details." Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, where is that quote from? WP:NOT doesn't include it. Jclemens (talk) 04:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the quote is actually from Wikipedia:Notability_(fiction)#What_Wikipedia_is_not. --Mark viking (talk) 05:52, 7 October 2017 (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.