Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interuniversal travel

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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interuniversal travel[edit]

No sources, just not noteworthy for its own article. --Nicholas Weiner (talk) 01:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, no secondary sources (or any sources). As an aside, it had several spelling errors which I went ahead and corrected. Renee (talk) 03:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has no sources, no mention of the history or coining of the term. About as useful as an article on the inner workings of a Flux capacitor at this point. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even worth a mention in parallel universe. Completely unsourced, making up for lack of anything to say with namedropping ("Cosmologist Max Tegmark theorized that universes could exist...") and throwaways like "Such travel could theoretically be assisted by using wormholes." Mandsford (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I can think of fictional occurrences or uses of such, they're so different that it's hard to imagine them in the same article. (Iain M. Banks' Excession, The Algebraist, maybe others; some of Greg Egan's physics stories Diaspora, Schild's Ladder, possibly others; and Charles Stross's The Atrocity Archives ... there are surely others.
Weak Keep Sorry for not adding citations sooner. I added a few citations. Nicholas Weiner has accused me of vandalism for some reason. It was a topic covered extensively in science fiction. Not OR just didnt have time to add citation, I felt it might be worthy of an article since it is a common theme in science fiction. Valoem ^talk 14:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just kidding around - sorry. It wasn't like I was ever gonna go past first-level warning. --Nicholas Weiner (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be nice to editors. The comments you made were clearly very passive-aggressive Mr. Weiner, and regardless of what you think the intention of the author is, it really isn't your place to jump on them like that. A more appropriate note would have been:

"Thank you for your contributions to Interuniversal travel. I wanted to inform you however, that the article has been nominated for deletion because it is a topic on the physics of science fiction, which would fit better under the novels that include that theme, rather than as an article in its own right"

Doesn't that read better?? -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 50% of real-world claims -- "Such travel could theoretically be assisted by using wormholes." -- uncited. Other claim, cited, is a few steps removed from topic. Article contains no other significant information. The topic term itself yields fewer than 1,600 Google hits (WP:GHITS; yes, I know), and rapidly degenerate into wiki sites and simple dictionaries. Just doesn't seem like a topic that's garnered significant third-party coverage. --EEMIV (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2009 (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.