Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skip drive

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 Old Man's War. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-13 06:11Z

[edit] Skip drive

Skip drive (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The article does not differentiate between fact (research on faster-than-light speeds) and fiction (the role as a mode of transportation in the book Old Man's War). A book may be notable, but concepts introduced within a book do not deserve its own article. Possible WP:NEO as well. Sr13 (T|C) 01:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

That's outrageous. To differentiate between the two, you'd rather delete this page, yet keep the aricles on Warp Drive Hyperspace etc etc? All are fictional modes of FLT travel. All are based in various fiction works. These other articles do not deserve articles by themselves either then. If you delete this one, why would the others stand? If it is because it is not as wide-spread I believe that is all the more reason to keep it.

And if the only other problem you have is that "The article does not differentiate between fact...and fiction..." then why delete it, and why not just fix it?

I don't understand why this article is getting deleted and the other's arn't when there is so little difference, if any. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bhig3 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

Both warp drive and hyperspace are deserving of their own articles because they have been referenced and used in multiple works of fiction (and even non-fiction in the case of hyperspace). But "skip drive" has been only used in two books by the same author and has not been in use outside of the novel itself. Sr13 (T|C) 04:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• weak keep If used only in Scalzi's books, I am not sure it is notable, but it is perfectly clear that the discussion is taking place within the fictional universe. And as appearing in published fiction, its not a neologism. But probably the same principle is referred to under other names elsewhere in sf, as the possible physical reality has been widely discussed. DGG 04:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect to the book's article. I looked at FTL and there is indeed a list of 'see also' of various fictional 'drives' with their own articles, they should all probably be M and D'd, but their existence is not reason to keep this. --killing sparrows 05:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Delete and Redirect - Can you say "copyright violation?" ... half of the text in this article is just a copy&paste from one of the novels! --68.239.79.97 20:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC) 04:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete just another sci-fi description of an FTL drive system. Redirect to the book, maybe, but it's a bit generic. Copyvio clinches it. Guy (Help!) 23:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - element of fiction from just two books. And way too much of the article is a book quote. -- Whpq 15:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect I think if someone wanted to put this information into the article regarding Old Man's War it would be fine. Regarding the large amount of text cut and pasted from the book: I'm not going to squawk about it, but I think there's probably a more concise and useful way to get that information across -- Scalzi 23:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and Redirect If the article is mostly WP:COPYVIO then delete the article, put in a redirect to the book's article and include a paraphrased discussion on the concept there. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 20:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

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.