Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wormhole Physics

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 of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Doc ask? 23:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wormhole Physics

Stargate-cruft--Zxcvbnm 17:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to Stargate (device). It doesn't add anything to that article. Or redirect to Wormhole if people prefer the real life concept. I don't think I've heard the phrase used to describe real wormhole research though. --Tango 18:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Although this page talks about wormhole physics in the Stargate Universe, wormhole physics is a real field of study. It put the acuracy tag on there because it said wormhole physics was ficitional. It's not. the article just talk about it from a fictional context, Stargate. I agree with Tango. If everyone really thinks that this is such an obscure real-world topic, then redrect it to Stargate (device). If everyone thinks that it is a real field of study, than either form a non-Stargate article about it, or redirect it to Wormhole. Perhaps Stargate (device) should have a section for this term. Tobyk777 18:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
It's definately a real field of study, I just don't think it's a very common name for it. "Wormhole theory" or something is probably more common. I would guess most people associate the phrase with stargate (or "huh?", I suppose). --Tango 19:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
...or maybe most would think of, you know, holes where worms live. And wonder what the physics of such a hole might be. That should probably be a separate Wormhole Physics (of a hollow in the ground inhabited by an elognated legless invertebrate). Weregerbil 19:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Certainly a notable topic - we should start writing it straight away. I'll allow you the honour of starting it. ;) --Tango 19:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Thats pretty stupid. Tobyk777 19:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it was a joke... --Tango 20:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Tango. Pages like this (I've learned from my early experience) do not serve much purpose in Wikipedia. --Slgrandson 20:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose deletion or redirect: agreed, this article is looking a bit thin, has factual innaccuracy, etc., but nevertheless "Wormhole Physics" in Stargate is quite different to wormhole physics in reality. I suggest a disambiguation if you're worried about factuality. However, the article does explain some of the stated tenets of the Stargate take on wormholes (particularly the one-way and 38 minutes rules), and although it adds minimally to Stargate (device), it can be linked to from any other Stargate article (regardless of whether it is or not); indeed, we dont want anyone wanting to know about Stargate wormhole physics to have to read the entire article on Stargate (device) just to get their information. The issue here is more one of notability than duplication of information, and on the topic of notability, i submit that this fictionalised field is one of the core ideas in the entire Stargate universe. the article needs work, yes, but doesnt need to be deleted. -- Alfakim --  talk  22:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think enough is known about Wormhole Physics to write a whole article on it. It should just be a section in Stargate (device). The existing article says pretty much all there is to say, and that's not enough to warrant keeping it. A disambig is a good idea, though. It could point to both Wormhole and Stargate (device). --Tango 22:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. The article is short i will give you that. But it could be expanded, and likely will be as the show goes on. Being a stub, for now, is no reason to delete it. -- Alfakim --  talk  13:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I believe that "Wormhole Physics" could be mentioned in the main article and that this could easily be redirected, but not disambigged, people don't search for "Wormhole Physics" for Stargate. That is basically cruft.--Zxcvbnm 22:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Its not necessarily about searching, so much as that the article can be linked to from various other articles. There are many occassions when an internal link to Wormhole Physics (Stargate) would be useful, e.g. when in an episode "Samantha Carter writes a book about Wormhole Physics". or others. -- Alfakim --  talk  13:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I now agree with Aflakim. The pagen needs to be titled Wormhole Physics (Stargate). But there is enough info in gate on it for it to be kept. Change vote to keep Tobyk777 22:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and move to Wormhole Physics (Stargate), to avoid confusion with any reality wormhole physics. -- Saberwyn 23:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect Per Tango. Beno1000 00:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'm actually not sure whether to keep the article or whether to merge it into Stargate (device), but I'd tend defer to the Stargate portal folks for an opinion as to how much it is likely to be expanded, or to choke the main article, and how useful it is to have a dedicated article on this that other Stargate articles can link to. If the article is kept, it seems logical to move it to Wormhole physics (Stargate) or something similar, in order to avoid confusion per Saberwyn. Metamagician3000 12:43, 5 May 2006 (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.