The result was delete. Userfication available upon request. Jujutacular talk 05:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The article seems to be a completely arbitrary list of random fiction, that are only tied together by a list of "rules" that seem to have no justification aside from what the author made up himself. The actual article on Hard science fiction itself contains no such rules, and the only source listed is a single book that links to its page to purchase from Amazon. The article thus seems to be Wikipedia:Original Research, and fails Wikipedia:Notability. Rorshacma ( talk) 20:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC) reply
*Delete see below. on the grounds that the topic is adequately covered in the article
Hard Science Fiction which has a list of "Representative works". Also it looks v much like Original Research. I quite enjoyed reading it, but sorry...
Tigerboy1966 (
talk) 22:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
reply
That being said, for pity's sake, this is as obvious an essay, based on criteria solely chosen and solely interpreted by the article's creator, as I've seen in my seven years on Wikipedia. It's screamingly illegitimate original research, and I'm astonished that anyone could advocate keeping it. (Which, in fact, very few people have, and I'm likewise astonished that this AfD has been held open for three weeks with such a strong consensus to Delete.) Ravenswing 11:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Userfication available upon request. Jujutacular talk 05:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The article seems to be a completely arbitrary list of random fiction, that are only tied together by a list of "rules" that seem to have no justification aside from what the author made up himself. The actual article on Hard science fiction itself contains no such rules, and the only source listed is a single book that links to its page to purchase from Amazon. The article thus seems to be Wikipedia:Original Research, and fails Wikipedia:Notability. Rorshacma ( talk) 20:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC) reply
*Delete see below. on the grounds that the topic is adequately covered in the article
Hard Science Fiction which has a list of "Representative works". Also it looks v much like Original Research. I quite enjoyed reading it, but sorry...
Tigerboy1966 (
talk) 22:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
reply
That being said, for pity's sake, this is as obvious an essay, based on criteria solely chosen and solely interpreted by the article's creator, as I've seen in my seven years on Wikipedia. It's screamingly illegitimate original research, and I'm astonished that anyone could advocate keeping it. (Which, in fact, very few people have, and I'm likewise astonished that this AfD has been held open for three weeks with such a strong consensus to Delete.) Ravenswing 11:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC) reply