Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blinovitch Limitation Effect

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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 12:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blinovitch Limitation Effect

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a fictional concept that appears to have received no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the Doctor Who franchise. The only source that appears to have any substance is a book written by two people who are associated with the franchise through authoring books and magazine articles that are sanctioned by the BBC. The article relies on original research and repeatedly cites "examples" of the effect based on the assumed similarity between the event in question and the articulated effect along with speculation about the supposed roles played by various entities within the franchise. A Radish for Boris (talk) 21:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is there an appropriate analogue to Mythology of Dr. Who to merge this into? Jclemens (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps Whoniverse, if we are willing to lose quite a bit of information? NW (Talk) 17:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not a Dr. Who fan, so I really don't have an opinion on that. I'd say the argument against individual notability seems to have merit, but I'm not the best person to evaluate it. From other precedent on NN fictional mechanics of notable fictional franchises, though, inclusion in a larger article detailing multiple such elements seems to be preferable to deletion. The fact that might require trimming is mitigated by the fact we can Transwiki the entire thing to a specialized fiction wiki. Jclemens (talk) 17:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Surprisingly, the TARDIS Wiki has less information on this topic than we do. I would suggest transwiki-ing this over to there, if the community there wants it. NW (Talk) 21:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note The nominator, User:A Radish for Boris, has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Otto4711 Jclemens (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to the factual analogue mentioned in the article. Was/is a pretty central idea or plot device in Dr Who terminology. There are plenty of independent commentaries on Dr Who and they should have segments of text devoted to discussing this, given time travel is a central component of the show. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and transwiki to TARDIS Wiki. --Divebomb (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge Bad-faith nom. Seems a fairly valid spin-out article. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was tempted to close this per WP:SK 3 but the sockmaster is not technically "banned" and I consider arguments to transwiki as "delete" !votes. This is a damn good article and it should be kept somewhere if not here. Sending it to tardis.wikia.com sounds like a plan. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Why hive off legitimate material to some wiki where it will never see any improvement to sourcing ever again? It's taken almost a decade for wikipedia to get a significant number of articles in the state of looking like GA or FA, that is starting to look like a legitimate quality encyclopedia. None of the other wikis do. What exists on any of the splinter wikis is in some ways irrelevant here, and dooms it to obscurity. The overall encompassing of info on wiki and the crossfertilisation of editors is what gives WP its edge and drives its continuing improvement, so I guess this is a long way of registering why I hate the idea of transwiki. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is discussed, with significant coverage, in reliable secondary sources (the cited books by Parkin, Letts and Miles). The fact that the secondary sources are all related to Doctor Who is irrelevant; discussion of any fictional subject is most likely to be found in material focused on that subject. The key is that these sources — all non-fiction, or at least containing significant non-fiction elements — discuss the idea in a real-world context beyond its role in the plots of specific Doctor Who stories. WP:FICT lists three criteria for keeping articles with fictional subjects: real-world coverage, importance of the fictional work, and role within the fictional work. I think this meets all these criteria. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think i'm done adding references for now. As stated above, there is enough coverage from sources that discuss the effect (the Miles book being almost entirely about it) that it meets the notability standards for an article on a fictional concept. The Effect has been utilized extensively throughout the series and is one of the most important concepts, arguably, in the entire series. Silver seren^C 17:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.