Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time slip

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 and redirect to Timeslip (disambiguation). T. Canens (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Time slip (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)

I am unable to find discussion of the topic in reliable secondary sources. Fringe sources appear to refer to it as a variation of time travel. Location (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections to redirecting to Timeslip (disambiguation). - Location (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable credulous dingbattery, preferably at least two weeks ago... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Time travel Term is in some use mostly in sci-fi works/settings (mostly Japanese? eg. eponymous series by Tōichirō Kujira), but no RS indicating that it is separately notable (in JAWP is redirected to Time travel). 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 05:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Addendum: No objection to redirect to Timeslip (disambiguation) and then link to Time travel there. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 01:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A list of harmless crankery and modern folk beliefs. Topic is distinct from time travel and has some support among the credulous. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
• Redirect to time traveltimeslip (disambiguation) - not a notable topic among the cranks and nutjobs; trivial aspect as a science fiction meme. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The subject "time slip" does not reckon with the obscure Fortean spin on time travel it describes: i.e. anecdotal stories of people who say they were inadvertently thrust into another time. Not enough notability for its own article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to timeslip (disambiguation) - fails WP:GNG. shoy (reactions) 13:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fictional topic purporting to be real, no reality-based sources to support its existence. Possible redirect to Time Warp (song). Guy (Help!) 14:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per WP:NOTNEO. For a neologisms to be included it needs to be discussed and defined extensively in reliable sources, not simply used in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, then move Timeslip (disambiguation) here. This is just another name for time travel, so I suppose an entry could possibly be added to the dab page. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Rather unique form of time travel paranormal phenomena. Worthy of its own article due to being both a common feature of some paranormal experiences and paranormal-related fiction. It is something relevant to the field, not at all obscure. DN-boards1 (talk) 01:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Individual cases might be well documented, but syncretizing them seems to be original ideas. The term/concept is not established by anything reliable. If sources documenting paranormal folklore describe this as a common class of story, it could be mentioned as such within a more general article or rewritten from this perspective.Cyrej (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete redirect. Article as it stands is not supported by peer reviewed academic research except as a plot device in literature.--Savonneux (talk) 05:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a so-called paranormal phenomenon of some notability, since it is a term which has frequent mentions in the secondary sources (as a quick Google will show), the characteristics of which are not the same as sci-fi Time Travel (no "Time Machine" involved). Cases have been considered by, for example, the sceptic Mike Dash for the Smithsonian Magazine http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/when-three-british-boys-traveled-to-medieval-england-or-did-they-35698485/?no-ist . Or possible Redirect to Retrocognition, though that term seems less common? Unless it's the case that all articles about claims of the paranormal must be expunged from Wikipedia, lest those of us living in the real world start believing them. Flying saucers and ghosts don't exist either, but that doesn't stop people reporting seeing them, or Wikipedia having articles about them. Liverpres (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment for notability, a neologism needs to not just be mentioned in secondary sources, but extensively discussed and defined in those secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

See WP:NOTNEO. Nwlaw63 (talk) 23:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it's not a neologism as Wikipedia means "neologism". It's frequently used in Fortean literature with a clear understanding of its meaning (whether they happen or not, the meaning is clearly understood by the target audience). Liverpres (talk) 00:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's literally the definition of a primary source. Secondary source would be if someone outside their group analyzed its meaning in published WP:RS content.--Savonneux (talk) 11:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's absolutely not the definition of a primary source, a primary source would be the original direct statement of someone who claims to have experienced this. Discussion of such a statement in print would be a secondary source. Liverpres (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Timeslip (disambiguation) Editorial choices can be made later on if it's determined that it would be better served as a disambiguation page. Mkdw^talk 00:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Timeslip (disambiguation) and link entry there to Time travel much per the opening to this article. It doesn't matter whether or not you like it. It doesn't matter whether or not this a real phenomenon (it isn't). It isn't a neologism as it has been in use for a long time. It doesn't need to be covered in academic research to be included. If it's only a plot device in fiction that would not rule out having an article on it. The key thing here is the lack of sourced information and the poorly defined scope of the article, which currently includes too much vaguely related content. One sentence on the disambiguation page (which would be a better target that Time travel for anyone typing in this title) would suffice until decent sources can be found discussing this specific phenomenon as a claimed occurrence in real life and/or an element of fiction. --Michig (talk) 08:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from what you're saying, there doesn't seem to be a reason why there should not be an article on the subject, just that as it stands it's not a very good article? In which case surely that's a case for keeping and improving what exists? There's a fair amount of reference material out there, both credulous and debunking, for example the Mike Dash piece for the Smithsonian that I referenced above , and this http://www.spr.ac.uk/main/page/conference-abstracts-2009 Liverpres (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rename to Time slip (paranormal) and redirect Time slip to Timeslip (disambiguation) as it's hard to argue that there is a clear WP:Primary topic. "Keep" because of its wide use in fiction - I am not claiming that the paranormal activity alone would meet WP:N but when you add in its use in fiction in various related forms, it does. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Agree Liverpres (talk) 02:45, 26 August 2015 (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.