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. MBisanz ^talk 03:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mindwipe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article is pure own research, cites no sources, and gives no indication of the notability of the subject. Jerry delusional � kangaroo 00:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the first AFD at this title has nothing to do with this article, it was about a fictional character. Please disregard it when discussing the article nominated here. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Well, yeah, the nominator pretty much summed it up. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - Original research, no sources, not notable...basically restating the nom _David^WS _(contribs) 01:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Erase for being original research that covers a number of other terms that are better handled within those universes. Maybe there is a way to create a meaningful article that touches on the different ways erasing someone's brain in part is used as punishment in fiction, but it would require a complete rewrite anyway. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete wipe: where are the sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexius08 (talk • contribs)
• Keep - see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mental emetic, which deleted one of my very first ever articles, from 2005. 'Mental emetic' and 'mind enema' were the Red Dwarf equivalents of mindwipe. It's actually a pretty common science fiction meme. It just needs someone to write a decent article on it. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - by the way, I hope that people realise that the first AfD is on a Transformers character. This article is on a different topic entirely. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I stated above, there *may* be a chance to write an article, but it would require a complete rewrite. It would have to be adequately sourced from the start and the notability explained clearly. I am not sure it would have this title. This article just isn't it and is too far away from what the standard would be. Maybe starting out in userspace and getting some other users input first, to see if it developed. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 12:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's one of the plot devices in Alfred Bester's The Demolished Man. However, whilst I am able to find literary analysis of TDM and a source that documents capital punishment (both a machine that effects it and a replacement for it) in Babylon 5, I am unable to find a source that links even just those two works of fiction together under one single umbrella, let alone one that also pulls in Red Dwarf. Collecting and listing examples of ocurrences of a particular concept in fiction does not magically create an encyclopaedia article about the concept itself. (See User:Uncle G/Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing.) We don't have a source that states that this is a trope, and that collects all of these examples under one umbrella. Our doing so would be original research. We certainly don't have a source that discusses mind wiping in science fiction.

    There's an opportunity here for an enterprising literary critic to document a theme that hasn't heretofore been documented. But that opportunity must be taken up outside of Wikipedia.

    In the meantime, here's an opportunity for an enterprising Wikipedia editor: Take page 73 of ISBN 9780786429165 in hand and try to work that analysis somewhere into our Babylon 5 articles. Uncle G (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Completely unsourced original research. Jay32183 (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While the article is currently unsourced, sources certainly exist for this. Please do not WP:SNOW this, and Delete voters, please check back in a day or two, as I will be improving it. Jclemens (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 18:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Use in multiple science fiction under multiple names. We can collect them together, while looking for a general source, for the concept is notable. DGG (talk) 09:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the concept is likely worth an article, but it would require a complete rewrite, and rename, would it not? That is the basis for my delete here, and there isn't any substance here to base a proper article on. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As is, this AfD will likely close before I get to my B5 source materials, which happen to be at work. Would you support an extension on this AfD to give me a chance to make improvements? Jclemens (talk) 01:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Request userfication right now and get it over with, in that case. There's nothing in the article of sufficient value that it couldn't easily be rewritten from scratch in five minutes anyway. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Chris sums it up best, there just isn't anything worth saving. Recreate. I would love to see this done properly. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 11:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We are not a dictionary, and this is just a dictdef which says "common term for the erasing of memory in science fiction". As is absolutely typical with these cases, there are no reliable secondary sources which discuss that phenomenon itself, and as such having an article on the subject based on the aggregation of multiple primary sources is total WP:SYN. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:07, 17 November 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.