Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mirror Universe
- 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator, with no !votes to delete (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Mirror Universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article has existed for about 13 years as filled with intricate non-encyclopedic details, and mainly written from an in-universe perspective. Notices of these issues have been standing for years (original research and lack of citations - 9 years; in-universe - 6 years; personal essay - 5 years; unencyclopedic intricate details - 3 years). Meanwhile its main contributors have only added more and more intricate details and likely original-research material. The encyclopedic value of this article is questionable for these reasons. Limited coverage in parallel universe (fiction) should be enough — parallel universe (fiction) suffers from similar issues but at least it's encyclopedic as a concept. Mirror Universe is not encyclopedic and does not follow Wikipedia guidelines. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 19:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator - new references make the article arguably notable. See below. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 13:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep recurring feature of the Star Trek universe that's sufficiently distinct from more general parallel universes to deserve its own article. Artw (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- The references say the characters refer to the mirror universe as a "parallel universe", the Star Trek Encyclopedia refers to it as a "parallel continuum", "another dimensional plane", "parallel existence". The references don't point to anything inherently distinct from a parallel universe, and the general lack of references supports this absence of significance or distinction. Star Trek has a tendency to create its own terms to existing sci-fi concepts, but that doesn't automatically make it a distinct concept, or notable, or encyclopedic. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- The references seem sufficient to establish it as notable as a setting. Artw (talk) 01:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- One fan-encyclopedia, four primary sources, one promotional page, and three fan-wiki articles? Not really. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 02:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- The references seem sufficient to establish it as notable as a setting. Artw (talk) 01:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- The references say the characters refer to the mirror universe as a "parallel universe", the Star Trek Encyclopedia refers to it as a "parallel continuum", "another dimensional plane", "parallel existence". The references don't point to anything inherently distinct from a parallel universe, and the general lack of references supports this absence of significance or distinction. Star Trek has a tendency to create its own terms to existing sci-fi concepts, but that doesn't automatically make it a distinct concept, or notable, or encyclopedic. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep The Wired (magazine), Boing Boing, Newsweek, and Science Fiction Studies refs all demonstrate that there are sufficient independent, non-trivial reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG, which means the rest of the nominator's objections can be improved by regular editing. Jclemens (talk) 06:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Five of these sources which were added today—Newsweek, Wired (two articles), Tor.com, and AV Club—are episode guides or episode reviews and do not meet the WP:GNG, in particular "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". Mentioning the plot device in a "best of" list, an episode guide, or an episode review is a trivial mention; otherwise you might create articles for every single plot device mentioned in these articles. The two other sources, Science Fiction Studies and Boing Boing, do actually discuss the Mirror Universe significantly. While I personally don't think they meet the WP:GNG, it could be argued that they do. Withdrawn by nominator. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 13:49, 8 June 2016 (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.