Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slipstream (science fiction) (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 Closed. 1 day is too soon to renominate just because you don't agree with the outcome and 100 people didn't participate. leave this 3 months at least. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Slipstream (science fiction)

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

Re-nominating for deletion due to lack of consensus. There is no indication that Slipstream is anything but another word for Hyperspace (or in the words of TVTropes, "our hyperspace is different"). Any searches for sources only bring up Slipstream (genre). Unless someone can come up with published proof that slipstream is distinct from hyperspace, it should be deleted. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close This was re-nominated one day after the close of the previous AfD, in violation of WP:DELAFD, and should be speedily closed. Newimpartial (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- By WP:COMMONSENSE, I am not sure how you can mark the previous discussion "case closed" as there were only 3 participants. It might apply in cases of lengthy "no consensus" with back and forth between editors... but really?_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the previous AfD was wrongly closed, you should file a deletion review. You should not, by policy, launch a new AfD immediately because the precious one had the "wrong" close. That's I don't like it, and not an occasion to Ignore all rules. Newimpartial (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close per Newimpartial. I argued strongly in the previous AFD, with evidence, that the terms are not the same. Admittedly, that evidence is quite weak, but no evidence at all has been presented, either here or the prior AFD, that the terms are the same. The rationale in the nom is entirely without merit and in complete disregard of the prior discussion. A case of I don't like it I think. SpinningSpark 15:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's like saying "no evidence has been presented that the Earth has breathable air". Anyone with eyes can read the article and see that both are about using FTL travel through other dimensions. The article doesn't attempt to claim it's different, and in fact it is mentioned in Hyperspace as another type of hyperspace travel._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case you should have no trouble finding sources to counter my evidence. Here's another source that was not presented at the first AFD which directly addresses this issue. In The Escapist magazine an article by C J Miozzi, "5 Faster-Than-Light Travel Methods and Their Plausibility" has at no.1 Hyperdrive and no. 4 Slipstream. While Miozzi agrees that "there is no widely-agreed upon definition" of slipstream he looks in detail at the Andromeda incarnation of slipstream and gives a description which clearly puts clear water between it and his earlier description of hyperdrive, at least for the case of Andromeda. SpinningSpark 00:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article says there is "no widely-agreed-upon definition", so the articles notability must be considered in the context of the respective shows that use it. Otherwise you are using WP:SYNTH to combine unrelated concepts of Slipstream into one article. And it's simply not notable when you take slipstream from each show mentioned in the article rather than cramming unrelated concepts together._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:57, 3 March 2018 (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.