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. bd2412 T 04:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slipstream (science fiction) (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)

Trying this again. "Slipstream" is not a distinct concept from "Hyperspace", just another word for it. "Slipstream space" is literally "Hyperspace" by another name. This article lacks references and is non-notable, it doesn't need to exist. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Hyperspace, as these two seem to be more or less the same thing. Not a very active user (talk) 07:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. The nominator has advanced no new arguments or evidence. He has lazily just renominated and expects others to do all the work. Evidence that sources treat these as two different concepts was presented in both previous AfDs. They may not be the best of sources, but in three AfDs, we have had nothing from the nominator to support their position, and no attempt to pursue any of the non-deletion suggestions made in previous AfDs. Just a new nom in the hope that opposition has now gone away. SpinningSpark 14:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Your so-called evidence was entirely Reddit users. I still don't see any actual evidence they are different from a non-in-universe context. Of course it would be different when used within a certain fictional universe, but that's semantics only._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Please don't tell outright lies. The reliable sources I presented were, in the first AFD, the book Death, Resurrection, and Transporter Beams, and in the second, an article in The Escapist magazine ("5 Faster-Than-Light Travel Methods and Their Plausibility"). It's true I also listed some forum posts, but only to show that SF fans were drawing a distinction, not as reliable sources for the article. "None of that is usable RS in article of course..." is what I said when I posted it. And only two out of five were taken from Reddit. SpinningSpark 15:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I did check the book you mentioned, but that seems to have absoutely nothing to do with the concept described in this article, which is a method of interstellar transport. In the book, it describes slipstream as a metaphysical concept in which the soul survives after death. I have no idea whether that would be notable enough for an article, but this article is still not a separate concept._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a common and notable aspect of various science fiction. I added in two reference to the article, [1] and [2]. Slipstream and Hyperspace are certainly different concepts, hyperspace being something that exist everywhere as regular space, and slipstream being not everywhere but only various paths. The same editor nominating this for deletion a third time because he didn't previously get the results he wanted, does seem like gaming the system. Dream Focus 21:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The ad hominem attack was uncalled for here. As for those links, I don't think they really prove anything about how slipstream is separate from hyperspace. In fact the first one says "there is no widely-agreed upon definition of what slipstream is or how it works beyond it being a means of FTL". However what is generally agreed on is that it involves using another dimension to travel faster than light - hyperspace._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You have now repeatedly argued with the source over two AFDs, presenting your own OR rather than any counter source, saying the source does not prove anything. On Wikipedia sources are the proof, and that source clearly separates hyperspace, listing it as method no. 1, and slipstream at method no. 4. The second source is only discussing the Star Trek universe, but evidently to them, "warp drive" and "quantum slipstream drive" are two different things. SpinningSpark 11:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, the sources separate the two concepts. But a read through of the actual definition shows that they use the exact same principles, just in a slightly different way. Hyperspace is interdimensional travel, slipstream is "guided" interdimensional travel. I'm not arguing that slipstream should not be mentioned in the hyperspace page, just that it doesn't merit an entirely separate article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep WP:SKCRIT The term is common in science fiction and is distinctly different than hyperspace. The nominator seems to use a rationale WP:IDONTLIKEIT Lightburst (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - It seems to be a minor derivative topic, and one of the added sources literally says there's no set definition. This seems like it will never be more than a collection of minutia on how the term functions in each individual fictional universe, so it should realistically be a couple sentences or a paragraph on the hyperspace page (or another more suitable article if there's a "List of FTL Travel" or something). TTN (talk) 11:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Hyperspace. There is no indication that this has been discussed of universe outside of primary sources and some mentions in passing. As one argument for keep here cited [3], let's quote from this: "The concept of slipstream can be found in such works as Star Trek, Doctor Who, and the Halo video game franchise, but there is no widely-agreed upon definition of what slipstream is or how it works beyond it being a means of FTL." So it is just a science fiction synonym for hyperdrive (already merged there following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyperdrive) or hyperspace. This is alljust a POV fork of FTL in fiction anyway and I think we should merge any relevant articlss there (the ones that have never been discussed in real science/etc., warp drive for example is fine as stand alone because not only there is some decent non-primary discussion of it in real world books but also Warp_drive#Real-world_theories_and_science is relevant - but there is a big difference between that concept and the fancruft undefinable word that is slipstream. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Hyperspace then Rename Hyperspace to Slipstream (science fiction) Keep on the basis that sources do exist which establish this fictional topic's notability, even they may be somewhat less reliable and that for such fictional topics, we need to apply be more liberal in what constitutes WP:RS. Doug Mehus (talk) 17:09, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dmehus:How is "slipstream" more commonly used than "hyperspace"? As far as I know, hyperspace has been around for a while, and "slipstream" has only been used in a select few TV series and books, sometimes not even under the same name. (In Halo, it's "slipspace")._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:46, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zxcvbnm, Well, then I guess my vote would to keep them separate. It sounds more separate than the same thing as hyperspace, no?Doug Mehus (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmehus:I don't think it does. I agree with the argument of Piotrus above that there is no indication that slipstream is not just a fancy synonym for hyperspace. It describes a slightly different type of hyperspace travel, but not one that is distinct enough to merit an entire article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zxcvbnm, Yeah, it seems to be different enough than Hyperspace, but on what basis not to mention its own article? There's lots of potential sources here (thinking Memory Alpha, Star Trek official website, and Battlestar Galactica fan sites).Doug Mehus (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmehus: Citing from other Wikis or fansites is not a reliable source. The basis is that it lacks exploration in reliable sources, see WP:RS. If there were a number of books exploring the idea of slipstream as distinct from hyperspace, I'd say something different. However, the sources that have been brought forth so far in these AfDs are very lackluster. Just because a fictional universe says it's different does not mean that it is a unique thing in terms of overall sci-fi. There has to be a separation of WP:INUNIVERSE content with the out-of-universe tropes._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:15, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zxcvbnm Well, ordinarily, I'd agree with that when it comes to people, organizations, and companies, but in terms of fictional topics, especially niche sci-fi areas where mainstream press coverage on such nuanced topics is non-existent, I think we need to take a more liberal approach to WP:RS, so I'll stand by my position.Doug Mehus (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zxcvbnm For what it's worth, I suspect this will close as no consensus we have three merges, one of which (mine) has a conditional clause; two redirects; one delete or merge (nom); and four speedy, regular, or weak keeps (one of which is mine if my conditional clause on the merge is not honoured).Doug Mehus (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmehus: AfD is WP:NOTAVOTE, the strength of arguments is what matters rather than the number of editors giving their opinion. There have been some persuasive arguments why slipstream is not its own concept. There is a possibility, but I disagree that it is guaranteed to end as no consensus._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zxcvbnm I know it's not a vote, but I also disagree, somewhat strongly, that we need to strictly apply WP:RS to fictional, niche topics. It's a solid argument, and thus, my vote is as valid. At the same time, despite it not notionally be a vote, admins do tend to look at the voting patterns, as much as you and I may disagree with that. You've also convinced me that merge is the wrong approach; there's enough difference here between Hyperspace and Slipstream (science fiction). Thus, I've modified my vote to Keep, and clarified my argument above. Doug Mehus (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per my vote at the first AfD. These are distinct enough terms to have separate articles, especially since there is still no plan for how a proposed Faster than light travel in science fiction page would work. At the very least, deletion isn't the answer. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:17, 20 October 2019 (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.