Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subspace (Star Trek)

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, default to keep. I'm not comfortable calling this an outright keep because (despite many assertions) there are no specific citations of, say, links to or pagenumbers in works where this subject is discussed in any detail. Sandstein 22:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subspace (Star Trek)

No references beyond citation to dictionary-type definition. The rest is uncited and/or original research. No real-world notability. --EEMIV (talk) 13:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep although I have to admit I don't much like the article itself I've found a few places where the concept is discussed in real life (unfortunately, I don't know about Math or Physics to separate out the sources. Basically I did a google search on "subspace" and a google news search on ""subspace" physics". Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is already a subspace dab. page with links to various real-world/mathematical subspaces. --EEMIV (talk) 13:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect - the various terms used for the concept of FTL travel in science fiction are already covered at length in Hyperspace (science fiction) - I'd suggest a merge and redirect to this article. CultureDrone (talk) 13:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment not sure the Merge/Redirect thing works because Subspace in the Star Trek framing applies not just to FTL travel but, also FTL communications, and to a physical space within a space. A question for EEMIV and others is this: Did the real life term influence its use on the show or did the use of the term on the show influence real life? If the latter than that would be the real world impact for keeping this article (even though it does need improvement). Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Based just on the other Wikipedia articles, the fictional notion and the real-life mathematical term seem to be wholly unrelated. If anything, I'm going to guess that the real term influenced the fictional term. But I don't have a source one way or the other. --EEMIV (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidently notable Colonel Warden (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Several of these are in-universe references that do not offer a real-world treatment. Seemingly useful sources -- e.g. religion of, physics of, computers of -- just regurgitate plot summaries or just the term. Insufficient to establish notability or to offer real-world treatment that meets threshold for retention. --EEMIV (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. This is a fictional concept and s no real-world aspect is required. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Fictional concepts' coverage should connect to its real-world context by providing information, for example, on the thing's (or character's or plot device's or whatever's) conception, development, critical response, etc. WP:WAF is the guideline you're looking for, to say nothing of the policy calling for verifiable, reliable sources. --EEMIV (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAF does not say this. Its point is that, in writing about such an imaginary device, we should make it clear that it is fictional rather than a genuine invention. This is a matter of style and not a reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there are insufficient (if any) reliable third-party sources that offer material to amalgamate into a Wikipedia article. --EEMIV (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There have been notable authors who have written about the "physics in star trek" and whether things like subspace and warp drive have any basis in science. Would this be a good enough real world connection?--Mars2035 (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. If someone can actually cite a scholarly text's "significant coverage" of the topic, then then (just as bad) Physics and Star Trek would be a place for it. But none of this article's original research and plot summary is worth retaining/merging to such an article. --EEMIV (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article is written poorly and needs references (the ones it has are startrek.com and memory alpha, neither of which are reliable sources) but I think there does need to be an article about a major topic like this, as most of the series would be impossible without subspace. It should be rewritten with better sources and the focus should be shifted to the idea's impact on other science fiction (star trek was one of the first to use the idea of another layer of space in which ftl travel is possible), and the "physics" involved. --Mars2035 (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If someone can find source to substantiate your claim that Star Trek's use of the term and depiction of "subspace" influenced other media, I'll withdraw the nomination and instead (further) stubify the article. But, frankly, as important as subspace is *in-universe* to Star Trek (i.e. makes it possible for the the Federation and other interstellar groups to exist and move about), it's use from a series development perspective has generally been limited to technobabble, and I doubt its influence outside the franchise is all that great. --EEMIV (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to hyperspace (science fiction). A very important concept in Star Trek. JIP | Talk 16:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete needs a line in a general star trek science article. --Killerofcruft (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Colonel Warden. There indeed exist reputable independent third party sources that discuss the concept. If someone could propose an umbrella article of star trek concepts or something, I wouldn't be opposed to changing vote to merge, but I'm not familiar with the layout of Star Trek Articles, or their respective sizes. -Verdatum (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a major topic in Star Trek and sources can be found. --Mars2035 (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per C.W. Hobit (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Physics of Star Trek Excellent book. Written in an out-of-universe point of view. Hefty preview on google books. There is more than enough to source a small article from in that book. Protonk (talk) 04:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Cleanup as has many referrants in popular culture, and like some other StarTrek terms is independantly notable because of its influence in pop-SciFi (ie. Warp Drive, Transporter, Phaser, Shields) 70.55.87.161 (talk) 05:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is really sad that so many would vote to keep this article when there is not one shred of actual evidence of notability, just a lot of speculation about what might be in books found in google searches. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability comes from the fact that it is a critical plot point in an extremely famous television series. Some of the books in Colonel Warden's link are notable and discuss this topic from an out-of-universe point of view, and those could be used in this article. Despite this article's current lack of sources, it is still a notable topic. Mars2035 (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is an occasional plot point in Star Trek, hardly critical to the series narrative or development. Please don't confuse its critical role to the Federation for being critical to one's understanding of the franchise. I flipped through my dusty copy of Physics of Star Trek today and its references to subspace 90% regurgitation of plot point (i.e. identifying one subspace anamoly or another). There is a passing reference to it in a section about 3/4 through on multiple dimensions, but it is brief and speculative. It is insufficient to sustain an article. --EEMIV (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I must disagree in the stongest possible terms with this line of reasoning; criticizing secondary/tertiary sources for not following Wikipedia guidelines! The fact that independent secondary/tertiary sources exist, and discuss the topic a lot makes it even more notable. And of course it is speculative. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 10:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is an iconic concept, in one of the literary works most responsible for the public's view of interstellar travel. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a very bold claim -- can you provide a source to substantiate the claim that it is an *iconic* concept? Seems it's more a convenient tech-y plot device that provides window dressing for the series. Maybe "iconic" to Captain Picard and the rest of that fictional universe, but not in today's real world. --EEMIV (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why don't you also delete Dilithium, Replicators, Khan Noonien Singh, and nearly every episode of every one of the series' that also has an article on Wikipedia. Most of those topics are less important than this. --Mars2035 (talk) 04:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - And I know that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a good rationale for keeping an article, but in this case you should consider the size of the franchise see the problem with choosing this particular article.--Mars2035 (talk) 04:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good grief, I don't even have to do a search to remember the book The Physics of Star Trek by Stephen Hawking. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 10:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lawrence M. Krauss, and if you crack it open you'll see it says virtually nothing about the topic. --EEMIV (talk) 13:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as notable fictional concept, discussed in numerous third-party sources. For one (although I don't have a copy handy to quote chapter and verse) I guarantee it's discussed at length in, oh wait, someone beat me to mentioning The Physics of Star Trek (ps - only the foreward is written by Hawking, but still). Ford MF (talk) 02:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although a great many people are !voting "keep" based on The Physics of Star Trek, the preview in google books is less than thrilling. While the concept is mentioned a half dozen times, WP:N says that ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail". I'm not seeing that the subject is discussed directly, and in detail. However, I'm also not convinced that this subject isn't notable, just that The Physics of Star Trek alone isn't enough to show that notability.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think anyone is relying exclusively on PoST, it's just something that was a big hit and a lot of people are familiar with. As demonstrated in the Google book search above, the topic is covered in varying levels of depth in a great number of secondary sources. Ford MF (talk) 22:45, 30 June 2008 (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.