From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. WP:HEY Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Hypertime (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a term from a comic book series that has no coverage in reliable third party sources, failing the general notability guideline. Even as is, this is a fictional term that only has WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs in the primary sources itself, and is really just a list of plots that have mentioned it. Wikpiedia articles are WP:NOTPLOT details, and there's no third party coverage that will allow us to give this a proper encyclopedic treatment. Shooterwalker ( talk) 19:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shooterwalker ( talk) 19:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs ( talk) 19:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉( talk) 19:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Wiktionary's entry is "Any of various fictional or theoretical time-like constructs that extend beyond normal time, usually by encompassing or spanning many distinct timelines (sometimes infinitely many)." That's just what we have here; no difference. Andrew🐉( talk) 19:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • That just means that comic books cribbed the real life idea. Perhaps a compromise can be found if the article's scope was changed to "hypertime" as a sci-fi concept, while the comic book usage became a section of it. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 19:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete or redirect/merge per Rorshacma. The source Andrew found ( [1]) is actually not bad (yes, I was surprised too, but it happens). Still, it is just one source and we need at least two to satisfy GNG requirement of multiple in-depth sources. If anyone can find one more, I'd reconsider my vote, although per ZXCVBNM, it should likely be renamed to Hypertime (DC Comics) if the term is indeed also used in real science, with the current title becoming a disambig. PS. Yes, Andrew also found one more source but I think the coverage of this term there is in passing and not in-depth, just a few sentences and not even a proper para dedicated to the concept. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Non-notable. Also, more fundamentally, we can't verify fictional sources. -- Lockley ( talk) 02:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Huh? But you can verify real sources writing about fictional works or concepts. You have confused WP:Truth with WP:Verifiability. 7&6=thirteen ( ) 14:53, 6 July 2020 (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.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. WP:HEY Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Hypertime (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a term from a comic book series that has no coverage in reliable third party sources, failing the general notability guideline. Even as is, this is a fictional term that only has WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs in the primary sources itself, and is really just a list of plots that have mentioned it. Wikpiedia articles are WP:NOTPLOT details, and there's no third party coverage that will allow us to give this a proper encyclopedic treatment. Shooterwalker ( talk) 19:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shooterwalker ( talk) 19:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs ( talk) 19:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉( talk) 19:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Wiktionary's entry is "Any of various fictional or theoretical time-like constructs that extend beyond normal time, usually by encompassing or spanning many distinct timelines (sometimes infinitely many)." That's just what we have here; no difference. Andrew🐉( talk) 19:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • That just means that comic books cribbed the real life idea. Perhaps a compromise can be found if the article's scope was changed to "hypertime" as a sci-fi concept, while the comic book usage became a section of it. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 19:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete or redirect/merge per Rorshacma. The source Andrew found ( [1]) is actually not bad (yes, I was surprised too, but it happens). Still, it is just one source and we need at least two to satisfy GNG requirement of multiple in-depth sources. If anyone can find one more, I'd reconsider my vote, although per ZXCVBNM, it should likely be renamed to Hypertime (DC Comics) if the term is indeed also used in real science, with the current title becoming a disambig. PS. Yes, Andrew also found one more source but I think the coverage of this term there is in passing and not in-depth, just a few sentences and not even a proper para dedicated to the concept. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Non-notable. Also, more fundamentally, we can't verify fictional sources. -- Lockley ( talk) 02:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Huh? But you can verify real sources writing about fictional works or concepts. You have confused WP:Truth with WP:Verifiability. 7&6=thirteen ( ) 14:53, 6 July 2020 (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.

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook