Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Self-replicating machines in fiction: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:47, 10 June 2022

Self-replicating machines in fiction

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Another de facto list that fails WP:LISTN, a simple WP:INDISCRIMINATE listing of all instances self-replicating machines appeared in a work of fiction (WP:NOTTVTROPES). If we were to approach it as an article, it falls WP:GNG, WP:IPC, mostly WP:V and WP:OR). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Popular culture, Science, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yup, totally indiscriminate. Wikipedia is not TVTropes.org. FOARP (talk) 10:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whole article is trivial just like many other recently nominated articles of the same kind. GenuineArt (talk) 11:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but weed out uncited material — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 13:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GhostInTheMachine Meeting WP:V alone is not sufficient to warrant keeping an article. The article also has to be within project's scope. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No meaningful discussion on the topic or any sources that discuss it as a group or set, simply a list of non-notable trivia. Rorshacma (talk) 14:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems to be WP:INDISCRIMINATE. In a BEFORE-type search, I found no evidence that the list topic is considered notable per WP:LISTN. I disregard WP:NOTTVTROPES and WP:IPC for the purpose of the AfD discussion, as they are essays, not policies. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. There are no self-replicating machines not in fiction, therefore all self replicating machines are fiction, even VonNeumann's original thought experiment, and so all RS coverage of the concept applies to this article. Jclemens (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If that's the case, than this article would be redundant, as we already have a full article on Self-replicating machines. Rorshacma (talk) 17:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens Seconding above, and out of curiosity, rename how? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it possibly is redundant and could reasonably be merged, but the fact that I'm the first person to point this out speaks poorly to the participation to date. i.e., if I'm the first one to point this out, no one previously opining has been paying sufficient attention. Jclemens (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens And pray tell what would you want to merge? Which part of the article do you consider worth saving? Please, do quote it. After all, if there is mergeable material, maybe this can be saved and does not need to be deleted at all? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everything. Since the topic is notable, anything that can be sourced to a primary source meets V and should be included. I get that you don't like that, and want to shift the burden of work to me, but there's no particular reason I should be forced to implement a merge. I wouldn't object to rewriting into prose, but again, that's work I don't have time to do. As far as your prejudices? See WP:BELONG. Jclemens (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tit for tat, all you are saying is WP:ITSNOTABLE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this page was originally split off from self-replicating machine in 2017. SailingInABathTub (talk) 00:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:TNT as an example farm with no encyclopedic value. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, indisriminate information, a good chunk is unsourced, possible original research. Merko (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:GNG due to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. There is a whole book on self-replicating machines in fiction,^[1] and discussion in other reliable secondary sources.^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]

References

^ Tim Taylor; Alan Dorin (2020). Rise of the Self-Replicators; Early Visions of Machines, AI and Robots That Can Reproduce and Evolve. Springer International Publishing. ISBN 9783030482343.
^ Isiah Lavender (2011). Race in American Science Fiction. Indiana University Press. p. 154. ISBN 9780253222596.
^ Hamid R. Ekbia; Bonnie A. Nardi (2017). Heteromation, and Other Stories of Computing and Capitalism. MIT Press. pp. 58–59. ISBN 9780262036252.
^ David H. Guston, ed. (2010). Encyclopedia of Nanoscience and Society. Vol. 2. Sage Publishing. p. 701.
^ Gregory L. Matloff (2005). Deep Space Probes; To the Outer Solar System and Beyond. Springer Publishing. pp. 168–169. ISBN 9783540247722.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely a topic that could have a prose article, but it would need 100% rewriting to reach that point, so there is no harm in deleting the current version. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of disagree on a prose article being needed here, simply because we already have a detailed, prose article on Self-replicating machines and, as already pointed out above, as the entire concept is theoretical/speculative to begin with, any coverage of the topic with those sources would be better off being used to supplement that article, not being split off into a separate article covering most of the same information. The book linked above is an excellent source for adding to the main article, not for justifying Keeping a trivia list. There is absolutely no content currently in the article that would be appropriate to merge to the main article currently (which is why this non-notable trivia was split out from that article to begin with), and any additional sources on the topic would be better served supplementing that article, not adding on to this mess. Rorshacma (talk) 06:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the other references section of the main article, it is dedicated to real-world developments in self-replicating machines, so not so theoretical. It is useful to have a clear distinction between scientific developments and the significant body of notable but imagined concepts in this area. SailingInABathTub (talk) 08:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree there's a difference between scientific concepts and in fiction treatment, and I would not be opposed to seeing this rewritten and kept as a stand-alone article. The problem is that nothing in the current list of trivia seems worth saving (per WP:TNT, WP:IPC, WP:LISTN, etc.). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well let’s look at all three:

WP:TNT - well WP:TNTTNT, yes the article would be better written in prose but it is far from useless. No fundamental issue with the content, that cannot be resolved by the normal editing process has been presented (such as copyright, advocacy, sockpuppetry etc).
WP:IPC - or more reliably MOS:POPCULT clearly states that “prose is usually preferable to a list format” but does not say that a list format is unacceptable.
WP:LISTN - Although it’s irrelevant as it passes WP:GNG, some of the reliable sources above discuss the fictional works featuring self-replicating machines as a group or a set. SailingInABathTub (talk) 00:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Tim Taylor; Alan Dorin (2020). Rise of the Self-Replicators; Early Visions of Machines, AI and Robots That Can Reproduce and Evolve. Springer International Publishing. ISBN 9783030482343.

[2] Isiah Lavender (2011). Race in American Science Fiction. Indiana University Press. p. 154. ISBN 9780253222596.

[3] Hamid R. Ekbia; Bonnie A. Nardi (2017). Heteromation, and Other Stories of Computing and Capitalism. MIT Press. pp. 58–59. ISBN 9780262036252.

[4] David H. Guston, ed. (2010). Encyclopedia of Nanoscience and Society. Vol. 2. Sage Publishing. p. 701.

[5] Gregory L. Matloff (2005). Deep Space Probes; To the Outer Solar System and Beyond. Springer Publishing. pp. 168–169. ISBN 9783540247722.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 ::: Apart from the [[Self-replicating_machine#Other_references|other references]] section of the main article, it is dedicated to real-world developments in self-replicating machines, so not so theoretical. It is useful to have a clear distinction between scientific developments and the significant body of notable but imagined concepts in this area. [[User:SailingInABathTub|SailingInABathTub]] ([[User talk:SailingInABathTub|talk]]) 08:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 ::::I do agree there's a difference between scientific concepts and in fiction treatment, and I would not be opposed to seeing this rewritten and kept as a stand-alone article. The problem is that nothing in the current list of trivia seems worth saving (per [[WP:TNT]], [[WP:IPC]], [[WP:LISTN]], etc.). <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]&#124;[[User talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</span>]]</sub> 11:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
+:::::Well let’s look at all three:
+:::::*[[WP:TNT]] - well [[WP:TNTTNT]], yes the article would be better written in prose but it is far from useless. No fundamental issue with the content, that cannot be resolved by the normal editing process has been presented (such as copyright, advocacy, sockpuppetry etc).
+:::::*[[WP:IPC]] - or more reliably [[MOS:POPCULT]] clearly states that “prose is usually preferable to a list format” but does not say that a list format is unacceptable.
+:::::*[[WP:LISTN]] - Although it’s irrelevant as it passes [[WP:GNG]], some of the reliable sources above discuss the fictional works featuring self-replicating machines as a group or a set. [[User:SailingInABathTub|SailingInABathTub]] ([[User talk:SailingInABathTub|talk]]) 00:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)