Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smartwheels

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 no consensus. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 12:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smartwheels

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

Article on one of many fictional technologies detailed in Neal Stephenson's (great) novel Snow Crash. I had redirected to the book but was quickly reverted. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and this goes against the guideline in Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)#Fiction in Wikipedia that minor characters, concepts, etc. should not be the subject of articles. Not sure if this is or is not worthy of a merge but should be deleted or redirected in either case.--Fuhghettaboutit 06:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• I accidentally reverted it. I didn't understand what had happened to the page.

  I disagree with your assessment of it. I can try to make it a larger page if necessary, with more of my own writing, but to mark it for deletion simply because it's one of many fictional technologies featured in a work seems unfair. If we applied that standard widely, we wouldn't have a page on lightsabers (just one of the many fictional technologies from the Star Wars universe) or Slaver stasis fields and scrith (a few of the technologies from Larry Niven's Known Space Universe) or any number of other things.--McFarty

• Delete Fictional technologies are rarely notable, especitally when found in only one novel. The article offers absolutely no legitimate sources and completely fails to establish notability. In response to McFarty, the existence (or nonexistence) of other articles on similar subject matter is irrelevant to this AfD, which is solely focused on whether this article is in compliance with policy. Some of these other articles you mention may also need to be deleted, though lightsabers are notable; they appear in a large number of movies (not just in Star Wars), books, etc. The topic of this article is nowhere close to reaching that level of notability. --The Way 07:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless independent sources can be found that discuss the concept. Lightsabers and scrith are notable because other people than the authors of the works they appeared in have discussed them (although I note that they aren't referenced in the article, detailed papers have been published in which the necessary strength of scrith is calculated). I'm not entirely sure about slaver stasis fields; perhaps that article should be deleted. Although I think I've read something outside of Niven's fiction about his monofilament weapon that depends upon them. JulesH 13:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep based on additional sources described below. JulesH 23:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Additionally, Niven's stasis fields (for example) weren't just a side note in one book; they were a significant element in a number of his writings - Ringworld and World of Ptavvs come to mind. Zetawoof^(ζ) 20:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, technically smartwheels are found in two novels and they're not just throw away technology in at least one of them. Snow Crash is a very notable book; at least in Time Magazine's opinion.
    • Arthur C. Clarke also wrote of a similar, though less advanced wheel concept in the novel 2001: A Space Odyssey. If you count that, then there's three. How many mentions in novels are requisite before it would become a notable fictional technology? How could I provide a more legitimate source for a fictional technology than quotations from the book it's featured in? In addition, smartwheels of a sort are in development already: IMPASS robot and the official page--McFarty
      • How could I provide a more legitimate source for a fictional technology than quotations from the book it's featured in? — By not writing articles that way in the first place. This isn't the place for original research, for reading the works of fiction and then performing our own analyses of their elements. There are plenty of people who have analysed science fiction, and who have published books and papers about all sorts of things in it. Work from those secondary sources, not from the original works of fiction. Uncle G 22:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I provided more information in the article, including a link to the real-world version of smartwheels, which should fall under acceptable Wikipedia content, since they're real technology.--McFarty
• Redirect to "Snow Crash". I appreciate McFarty's efforts, but I still don't see sufficient sources to support notability. The comparisons to Clark's work is original research. The Technovelgy article makes it closer, but the one article is not enough, per WP:N.--Kubigula (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Doug Bell ^talk 21:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, redirect. Nn fictional technology. Deiz talk 00:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the book is notable enough for this article. Or merge. SakotGrimshine 20:49, 26 February 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.