Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technology in science fiction: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:01, 23 April 2022

Technology in science 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)

Random, completely arbitrary grab-bag of unrelated technologies in science fiction. The sub-sections "Visitors from other planets" and "parallel worlds" have nothing whatsoever to do with technology. There is no clear coherent topic to be found anywhere; it's just an unvetted list that fails WP:IINFO. Each source is just about a random piece of technology and not about the wider-reaching subject of "technology in science fiction". If there is a central topic, then WP:TNT is desperately needed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Technology, and Lists. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sure many reliable sources discuss this topic. The article itself includes things not related to technology at all, such as the section Technology_in_science_fiction#ESP/Psychic_powers/Psi_phenomena. The article was originally created an editor who did nothing on Wikipedia outside that one article Special:Contributions/Jaas2. Science_fiction#Elements shows some elements of science fiction and we have List of science fiction themes. Dream Focus 05:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT is certainly a fine option. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 05:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be about tropes and not technology. “You had one job” is the optimal phrase here. Dronebogus (talk) 05:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:TNT. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete PROD was attempted by Siuk yuredn (talk · contribs) in November 2019 with similar concerns to the nominator: article is just a list of supposed "predictions" and random hodgepodge of SF elements. Deprodded by Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs), who also removed all the maintenance tags, as "stale and unproductive". –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn’t that guy topic banned for this exact reason i.e. disrupting deletion/maintenance process in order to make a WP:POINT? Dronebogus (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I enjoyed how the article started out badly in 2007 with a question as its subject, "How has the evolution of science and new technology helped shape common topics in the genre of Science Fiction?", and then its creator blanked the "Invisibility" section at Special:Diff/110713271. Irony and a (remedied) bad start aside, cutting out the sections that aren't technology, mentioned in the nomination, was easily achieved. Cleaning this up using sources such as ISBN 9783319409146 and ISBN 9783319517599 (to pick just two examples of works that relate and compare science fiction technology to the development of real world technology) is possible, and the latter actually divides up into chapters on invisibility, antigravity, robots, transportation, and suchlike much like this article does with the very same topics addressed in sections; so it is not as it already stands actually far from what sources do in terms of structure and analysis. It's nowhere near being a good quality article, but once the erroneous inclusion of non-technology is removed, as it has been with one easy stroke of the editing tool, it is not so far gone from what an article based upon sources could be that deletion is the answer. Uncle G (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:TNT. SignificantPBD (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article lacks coherence and the lead is unsourced, so I can sympathise with the TNT votes. However, it looks to me that parts of the article are close to salvageable; for example, the section 'Fictional technologies that have since been realized' looks like it could easily be converted to a list and I'd be surprised if we could not find sources attesting to the topic's notability. I agree with Uncle G that deletion is probably not the best outcome here. Would this be a good case for incubating the content in draftspace? — Charles Stewart (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete purely per WP:TNT. A redirect would be fine if there is a target. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 *'''Delete''' per nom and [[WP:TNT]]. [[User:SignificantPBD|SignificantPBD]] ([[User talk:SignificantPBD|talk]]) 19:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 *'''Comment''' - The article lacks coherence and the lead is unsourced, so I can sympathise with the TNT votes. However, it looks to me that parts of the article are close to salvageable; for example, the section 'Fictional technologies that have since been realized' looks like it could easily be converted to a list and I'd be surprised if we could not find sources attesting to the topic's notability. I agree with {{u|Uncle G}} that deletion is probably not the best outcome here. Would this be a good case for incubating the content in draftspace? &mdash; [[User:Chalst|''Charles Stewart'']] <small>[[User_talk:Chalst|(talk)]]</small> 20:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
+* '''Delete''' purely per [[WP:TNT]].  A redirect would be fine if there is a target. [[User:力]] (powera, [[User talk:力|<span style="color:#FA0;font-family:courier">π</span>]], [[Special:Contributions/力|<span style="font-family:courier">ν</span>]]) 22:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)