Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spacing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 merge to Space exposure as boldly done by AllGloryToTheHypnotoad. I will create a DMB page, because of alternative meanings, as suggested. TerriersFan (talk) 05:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spacing

Non-notable science fiction concept. Contains a small amount of highly speculative information (fails WP:CRYSTAL) in the lead, and goes on to list fairly non-notable occurrences of deaths by vacuum exposure in science fiction (fails WP:IINFO). GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 22:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, and WP:NOT#OR. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom; WP:NOT#OR also. Houseboater (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Smerge and redirect to space exposure, which already discusses the important bit (the science). We don't need an "in popular culture" list that much although mentioning some notable examples (BSG, Outland, 2001) is worthwhile. This is a pretty common sf trope (and is sometimes used correctly, e.g. in Red Mars), but there seems to be little critical discussion outside of some short debunkings of common misconceptions about it. --Dhartung | Talk 00:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Smerge and redirect as above. Merge with space exposure and put a "If you're looking for" note in a spacing page/section talking about the grammatical structure (if/when it exists). While spacing as an individual article may not be "notable" enough for Wikipedia (I'd debate that, but I'll admit that I'd probably lose), I don't see a problem with keeping the information in the article elsewhere. UPDATE: Okay, Qwfp raises a valid point, but I still think that keeping valuable information on a common science-fiction plot mechanism in a related page is preferable to tossing the work altogether. --Kant Lavar (talk) 11:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep significant plot element--tho I would eliminate the merely threatened ones, this i for the talk page to be discussed. There are probably dozens of additional one--I am not a particular sf fan, but I can think of a few. DGG (talk) 09:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, do not redirect. If I typed "Spacing" into the Search box I might expect to find an article discussing single and double-spacing of text, or whether to put one space or two after a full stop, not an article about a fictional method of execution. For the same reason I believe a redirect would not be appropriate. Qwfp (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • merge per Kant Lavar to "space exposure", and Qwfp beings up a good point. It's perhaps better to have a real article on "typographic spacing" with a "if you're looking for" pointing to Space exposure, for those wanting this topic. Why, DGG? Because this article's title is a jargon-slang version of Space exposure, and we only need one article on this (admittedly notable) plot device. It'd be like having articles on Red menace, Red threat, and Communist threat. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • merge and disambig - First, let's merge whatever useful info there is into Space exposure. Then, we turn this page into a disambig with Leading (i.e. line-spacing), Letter-spacing (i.e. tracking), and Space exposure. That works, doesn't it? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
update - I have now added the non-IPC content into an "in science fiction" section of the article Space exposure. I haven't transferred the "In popular culture" (whoops! I mean "cultural significance") section, as I don't like adding "In Popular Culture" sections to serious articles. Otherwise, this article can now be deleted and replaced with a disambig, as I suggested above, if you want. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I think that is a good idea. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 21:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and Disambig Looks like the merge is done. When I saw the AFD title I was making internal bets on whether it was about line spacing or Sci Fi deaths. That made me think of Disambig before I even looked at the article. No need for two articles about the same subject. Space exposure is the better article and term. Dimitrii (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • dab since merge is done I suspect at some point we'll get to have a reasonable separate article on this. I don't think the underlying history should be deleted because it will be easier to make a new article if we get sources later if we leave it there. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:50, 26 March 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.