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 Redirect. The content remains in the history if anyone wants to merge, but there doesn't appear to be anything sourced. Eluchil404 23:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

In-universe, pure OR, probable copyvio in the pics, no claim to notability, even within universe doesn't seem too important to me, more like a plot device. SolidPlaid 01:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would leave this article to provide definition of the term when it is used in the 74 articles that link to it. For reasoning see the examples in this page. Fosnez 02:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Oh, now that you pointed them out, I duty bound to nominate investigate most of those 74 articles for deletion too, for the same reasons. SolidPlaid 03:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I hope that was said in jest, in any case I will be watching your contributions very carefully. Fosnez 03:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see you have already started... This should be interesting... Fosnez 03:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am being very careful to stick to articles that have no apparent outside notability. My concern is that these things are uninteresting even within-universe. I have argued for the retention of certain Harry Potter articles that I felt had importance within-universe and outside. My take on deletion is long-term, and I always ask myself this question: "Could somebody in the distant future find themselves getting a PhD on this topic?" SolidPlaid 04:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree that some of the articles you have already nominated need work, but deletion is not the answer. They should either be fixed up or merged to Farscape (Plot Devices) - Fosnez 04:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Merging this is a good idea, but in order to do so we'd need some encyclopedic content to begin with. What we've got now is pure original research fancruft - there's not a single reference that backs up the information, not even to a fan site (I did look at the one external link, but it doesn't mention Rantath Flux anywhere on the page). If this can be severely cleaned up to have an encyclopedic tone with usable references, it may be worth keeping. As it is, it does not belong on Wikipedia. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:23, 21

September 2007 (UTC)

• Trim, Merge and Delete - I think there's enough information in outside sources to make a brief, one-sentence reference to the phrase in the main Farscape article where it may concern wormholes in the Farscape universe, but we shouldn't go in to great detail unless we can source it. The article is too long as it is not to cite references. If someone knows if there was ever a Farscape technical guide of some sort in print that would be helpful to make sure the information presented is accurate. As a sci-fi fan I love reading about in-universe cruft on Wikipedia, but I also want my cruft to be factual and sourced otherwise we end up with technical fan-fiction.--Torchwood Who? 06:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, into Wormhole (Farscape weapon) I guess. Probably deserves a mention somewhere, but it's not really deserving of its own article. PC78 12:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable fictional fork from Black Hole. Notability is not inherited from TV, unless demonstrated by independent secondary sources. --Gavin Collins 13:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 13:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)--[reply]
• Delete as the article's subject fails to meet notability standards through significant coverage from reliable sources. Also, per WP:WAF, this article fails to provide a real-world perspective of the subject, providing solely in-universe information. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:58, 26 September 2007 (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.