Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somebody Else's Problem field

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 delete; the moral keep is disregarded and the merge opinion is unpersuasive. Sandstein (talk) 20:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Somebody Else's Problem field

Somebody Else's Problem field (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Deletion nomination First off let me say that me and Zaphod Beeblebrox are tight. We just had drinks last night with Eccentrica Galumbits (the triple breasted whore of Eroticon six) at Milliways. After my third Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster, I said "Zaphod, have you seen this article, I mean, I love all of the books, really I do, but is there any reason for this article?" and he says "Well, I am the President of The Universe, and I can't see any reason for it, I mean its basically a plot element from the Hitchhikers Guide, and has no real-world commentary outside of that book". So I said "Yeah, but what about all of these other mentions outside of Hitchhikers" and he says "That's all original research baby! Look, other sci-fi books and TV shows have stuff like this in them all the time. There is no real connection. To connect the dots like that is original research. Other than that, there is nothing here. This should probably go to AFD." I said "Let me ask the Guide what it thinks about it". So I punched it in the Guide, and it said "Mostly harmless". That settles it. Call the Vogon Destructor fleet, this article needs to go to make space for a real article. Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep There is real world commentary out there. And the links to cognitive dissonance and bystander effect are good. There's some scope for merger but that's a keep. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. None of the Google News articles in that link are actually ABOUT the SEP field, they merely name-check it. They're trivial mentions. And the imagined links to all of the "other British science fiction" mentions are, as per nom, Original Research and unsourced synthesis. None of them use the same terminology or reference H2G2 in any way. The SEP field is a specific device in a specific book, and those items in Dr. Who are not it. Further, the Perception Filter of Dr. Who and Torchwood has coverage under List of Doctor Who items. There are literally hundreds of pieces of speculative fiction that involve a character appearing unseen by making people ignore him or her: vampires, werewolves, Sunnydale Syndrome, etc. This is one such example, but it does not have any independent coverage to make it worth having its own article. --Ig8887 (talk) 12:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Merge — Jayron32, if you had truly had a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster last night, you wouldn't be able to form a coherent sentence by now. That aside, I do believe that there isn't sufficient outside commentary on this topic. What about if we merge Somebody Else's Problem field, Sunnydale Syndrome, Reality distortion field and Perception filter into one article, with appropriate redirects. I don't know what it should be called, but they should be in one article then this article could stand on its own. — Val42 (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is you can't merge them into one article, because to connect the dots and say that they all represent the same thing is the definition of Novel synthesis. Yes, they all exist, but without some outside reference saying that they all are the same thing, its only YOU saying they all are the same thing, and thus merging them all would be drawing a connection where one does not exist in reliable sources. That's why deletion is teh best option. For the record, the rest of those should probably be deleted as well... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the same thing should be done to all of them, but I strongly think that the best solution is to merge them. — Val42 (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I definitely oppose a Merge, for a few reasons. First of all, novel synthesis. Second of all, some of those articles are completely different animals; the article on reality distortion field describes a business/marketing term coined to describe Steve Jobs' charisma! It has only a tenuous relation to the fictional devices we're talking about here. Third, Sunnydale Syndrome and Perception Filter don't HAVE their own articles; they exist within broader topics. Pulling them out of those to create one giant stew of vaguely-connected perception-altering fictional devices is just a bad idea. And fourth, novel synthesis. Instead of correcting the problems with this article, it would introduce new, bigger problems to a new, bigger article. (I realize that's technically only three reasons, but the first one was so big, I felt it bore mentioning twice. Oh, wait, that's the wrong scifi comedy...)--Ig8887 (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Moral Keep per WP:ILIKEIT. A term that is entirely too useful to jettison. Perhaps it should be turned into WP:SEP. Ronnotel (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  BTW, I blatantly Obama'ed this idea from User:Sarcasticidealist. Ronnotel (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete unless significant coverage in independent reliable sources is provided; as it is, this article violates WP:FICT, as it has no references to show real-world notability. Oh, and someone give Jayron32 a cookie for providing the funniest deletion nomination I've read in some time. :) Terraxos (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:FICT. Eusebeus (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2008 (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.