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. With thanks to TompaDompa for the WP:HEY save. asilvering (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stasis (fiction) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The concept discussed here may be notable (ex. [1]) but the execution we have right now needs WP:TNT: this is pure unreferenced WP:OR (tagged as such for a decade, also with essay-like and so on) mixed with a WP:TRIVIA/WP:IPC list of works where this concept occurs (sole reference is to one random work of fiction). Arguably, we could also save this as a stub - remove everything beyond the tiny current lead, that could be referenced to the SFE article I linked above. Eventually someone will expand it. But 99% of the current content has to go (also, per WP:V). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:50, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Science. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:50, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TNT. As of writing, there is only one reference to a book that has a statis field, and much of the article is WP:OR. Madeleine (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2025 (UTC) Keep per WP:HEY thanks to User:TompaDompa's edits. Madeleine (talk) 02:42, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This is mostly WP:OR that fails WP:GNG, let alone WP:V. A redirect to suspended animation in fiction could be an WP:ATD. If sources are found, that would be the place to work on it. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The sad thing is that the article used to be a lot more verifiable, back in 2005. It's rather silly to "blow it up" when it used to have the things that one can verify from books on science fiction, namely the bits about Vinge, Niven, and Heinlein. And as of this AFD nomination, the only verifiable things that can be said got removed yet again (as they have been quite a few times over the years) in Special:Diff/1278618480. A source for Vinge was given in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stasis (fiction) seven years ago. There's more on the "bobble" in Stableford's encyclopaedia in the entry for Vinge, as well as contemporary reviews. There's an outright entry for "bobble" in ISBN 9781476629551. Niven, including his own thoughts on the problems of the plot device, is documented by Hampton and McKay in ISBN 9781476631936. There's more in the entry for Niven in ISBN 9780684805931. Heinlein is in the glossary entry for "stasis field" in ISBN 9781040074619.

  It has been 20 years, people. Have you thought of the alternative approach of cutting out the fictional crap Wikipedia-invented description of how stasis fields work that you are repeatedly leaving in and leaving in the verifiable stuff about science fiction authors and their novels and plot devices that you are repeatedly editing out?

  Uncle G (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would say you are half right. verifiable stuff about science fiction authors and their novels and plot devices isn't what to base articles like this on, either. Verifiable stuff about the overarching topic is. The benefit of examples is that they can illustrate and reinforce the broader analysis; they cannot replace it (and analysis of specific works and authors generally belongs at the articles for those works and authors). TompaDompa (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • And you would be wrong in saying that. They are not examples. Stasis fields do not exist. We are not writing an encyclopaedia article on how stasis fields work with examples, despite rubbish edits like Special:Diff/852401938. The novels and the authors and the plot devices are the real things, and these authors are connected together for having used (roughly) the same plot device, joined together by contemporary reviews of Vinge linking to Niven, and by the likes of the stasis field entry in ISBN 9780425061879 (which calls it "pseudoscience"). (Ironically, one can even source the differences from the aforementioned sources, and the fact that Vinge's one is outright contrary to actual physics from ISBN 9783319150727.) Special:Permalink/12956733 was all about plot devices used in stories. I even just gave you a source that justifies its inclusion of Red Dwarf. Uncle G (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you may have misunderstood me, or perhaps I you. Sure they are examples—of a fictional concept appearing in fiction. The works and authors are real while the concept is fictional, but the topic of the article isn't the works or the authors but the fictional concept as such. Of course we shouldn't be treating it as a real concept, but we should be treating it as an overarching topic, not a collection of linked works. Sources on the overarching topic are what is needed to write a proper foundation for an article like this. For instance, the "Stasis Field" entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. TompaDompa (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have started rewriting this based on proper sources. I humbly request Piotrus, Madeleine961, and Shooterwalker take another look to see if their concerns have been addressed. Oh, and the title should probably be changed to stasis field. TompaDompa (talk) 23:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Awesome job, as always. I am happy to withdraw my nom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Great job, TompaDompa! – The Grid (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a lot better. It's still thin enough that I would consider a merge to suspended animation in fiction, or even combining both under a new title. I am open minded about the next step. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:22, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Merging with Suspended animation in fiction does not seem appropriate given that the sources on the topic cover other fictional applications such as weaponization as well, even if suspended animation does indeed seem to be the main one. TompaDompa (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not really sure about it either. There's definitely a non-trivial overlap, and if they were to be merged it would be under a wider topic. You've done great work here and I support it either way. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Right. Suspended animation could be seen as a specific and more realistic part of the wider stasis field concept (although really, realistic and stasis field seem pretty far away...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:49, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per WP:HEY. This is no longer the same article as was taken to AfD. /Julle (talk) 03:29, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per HEY. The subject has enough reliable, independent sources with at least a paragraph of coverage to establish notability, and significant changes have been made to address the writing style. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:23, 9 March 2025 (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.