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 delete. There appears to be consensus that although this obviously could be a notable topic, it's currently an indiscriminate listing without any binding sources.
Nosebagbear (
talk)
11:02, 28 April 2022 (UTC)reply
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
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
ISBN9783319409146 and
ISBN9783319517599 (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
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
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.
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 delete. There appears to be consensus that although this obviously could be a notable topic, it's currently an indiscriminate listing without any binding sources.
Nosebagbear (
talk)
11:02, 28 April 2022 (UTC)reply
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
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
ISBN9783319409146 and
ISBN9783319517599 (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
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
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.