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 Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Total conversion[edit]

Fails WP:NEO and WP:NOR. At first glance this article appears to have some validity as a possible theory or sci-fi concept, but on closer examination it is merely a personal essay on a fictional concept, and a person claims to have written the wiki article based on his own thoughts.[1] The article claims that a Heinlein novel may have been the original source of the idea, but Heinlein doesn't actually use this phrase to describe the concept. This article basically usurped the original and far more recognizable context in mod (computer gaming). A google search for "total conversion" and "science" does turn up a few real-world applications of the phrase, but they appear to be WP:FRINGE. However, I'll leave that judgment to editors who are better-versed in the (real) sciences. I also have to wonder if there is a real-world theory that could serve as a target for merge or redirect. Ham Pastrami (talk) 06:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vague synthesis of unrelated sources. As the sf is rarely dependent wholly on the scientific details this is best covered in articles on sf space propulsion. --Dhartung | Talk 07:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Renata (talk) 05:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#OR. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite Article is unsourced OR, and that term is not accepted by the scientific community. On the other hand, nearly all mentions of total conversions refer to modifications of video games that have made so many changes that all original content of the game has been replaced. That's what the article was created as, and that's uncontraversial, sot aht's what should be done.--Serviam (talk) 16:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination does not provide a clear reason to delete and seems to be mainly a complaint that the article does not write about video-games instead. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research. RobJ1981 (talk) 02:12, 4 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.