Self-replicating machines in fiction ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

First, the last comment was from a day ago, so as the discussion is not stale, it should be relisted. Second, per WP:AFDNOTAVOTE, strenght of the arguments should be considered. The closer says " those arguing for keep are fairly convincing", but does not explain why. The first keep vote did not provide any rationale ("Keep, but weed out uncited material"). IMHO neither did the second keep vote, which also suggested a rename (but never explained how to rename this), and later agreed that a merge to Self-replicating machine is possible. The third keep argument presented decent sources for rewriting this from an unreferneced list of trivia into a stand-alone article, but did not present arguments for why we should keep this article that, in the list format (in all but a name), fails WP:LISTN (I don't believe anyone even quoted a single sentence from the article that is worth preserving). The fourth keep comment is a simple WP:KEEPER/ WP:ITSNOTABLE. The last, fifth one, is subjective, arguably again confusing the fact that the topic is notable, from the fact that the execution (list of trivia) fails WP:IPC. I'll also add that a ton of identical articles have been recently deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smuggling in fiction, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CIA in fiction, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Los Angeles in popular culture (2nd nomination), etc. (see here for dozens of other examples of nearly identical lists of trivia, most ending in delete). I do not believe the closer is familiar with those cases, and it's a jarring inconsistency. Lastly, oh yeah, while NOTAVOTE, let's look at a tally: there were a total of 5 keep votes, and 9 delete ones (not counting my nomination, which would make 10). With 5 keeps (out of which, IMHO, three fail Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions), 10 deletes, closing this as no consensus a day after the last vote is IMHO not a best practice. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Relisting is only appropriate when there has been very low quantity or quality of contributions. It is not a substitute for closing as no-consensus. Stifle ( talk) 10:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC) reply
• endorse though I don't like it. There is enough input here, the problem is there is no consensus. I don't feel we're in a good place with this and I'm not sure what way forward would be ideal. But this isn't a great article and it seems unlikely to be a great article. I could imagine it being a true-and-solid breakout article of its parent. I just don't know if it can reasonably get there. Hobit ( talk) 10:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete The keep argument boiled down to "self-replicating machines" meeting GNG, not "self-replicating machines in fiction" meeting NLIST. The arguments for deletion (especially WP:IINFO and WP:CFORK) were barely addressed at all, and the notability of a different article should've had no bearing on it. It seems like someone decided to dump several possibly non-relevant sources just for the sake of winning the argument, failed to check if they really required this separate page (a serious editor would've tried to improve "self-replicating machines" and split it if necessary), and the usual bandwagon of people who vote keep over the slightest mention of a source showed up. Avilich ( talk) 13:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC) reply

You seem to have misrepresented my comments from the deletion discussion in the above statement. I'd like to invite you to reconsider them. SailingInABathTub ( talk) 14:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC) reply

I can't see you arguing that the list is suitable. Avilich ( talk) 15:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC) reply

See [1] SailingInABathTub ( talk) 16:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC) reply

You called for improvement through normal editing but didn't indicate how it should be done in order to maintain it as a list. Your mention of POPCULT addresses nothing, which leaves as your best rebuttal to the other side's arguments an essay called "TNTTNT". Also, your best source, Taylor & Dorin, is about self-replicating machines, not the machines "in fiction" as you understood it. Avilich ( talk) 18:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC) reply

In the diff I just quoted I said “the article would be better written in prose”, so again you are misrepresenting my comments. Your source assessment is also incorrect. SailingInABathTub ( talk) 19:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - It looks like No Consensus to me; the closer was right. If the purpose of a Relist is to get consensus one way or the other, when do you stop? Does the AFD eventually become a self-replicating machine? Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the Delete arguments were that the topic is unencyclopedic ( WP:NOT#IINFO) and that the content is so poor quality that we should delete it ( WP:TNT). These are both very subjective arguments which are largely down to editorial judgement, and the barrier to a TNT deletion in particular is quite high because we expect that articles shouldn't be deleted because of fixable problems. The fact that discussion was ongoing isn't a reason to relist it, we usually only relist AfDs if there hasn't been enough participation to produce a consensus or something has been missed in the previous discussion. Neither was the case here. It's a very poor article and I would have supported deleting it, but I can't fault the close. Hut 8.5 13:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - to re-list. Similar to what I wrote earlier, this feels like a fair compromise. Second preference - overturn to delete given the delete to keep votes ratio. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 15:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete or relist. I do not see how Whether a list of self-replicating machines in fiction is separately notable and encyclopedic is still up for debate, and those arguing for keep are fairly convincing on this point is a remotely acceptable rationale to give 2x weight to all keep !votes. The closer did not explain how keep arguments successfully rebutted the delete side's policy- and guideline-based justifications (NOT, OR, and LISTN), and did not address the very reasonable observation that the topic is redundant with the article from which it was forked, with zero reliably-sourced content added since the split. To restate: it appears the only salvageable material from the list was already word-for-word present in the self-replicating machines article history. Therefore, any new prose or examples from the sources identified in the AfD, which would be required to rewrite and proseify the current list, could just as reasonably be turned into a section of the original article instead. JoelleJay ( talk) 03:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist Per JoelleJay, the reason for giving delete votes extra weight seems faulty. Lurking shadow ( talk) 08:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to keep Sources were provided, most of the previous deletes did not return to comment on them, and those who commented afterwards made inappropriate arguments such as that the sources pertained to a different article--no policy suggests that a source cannot be used for two similar articles, and this is especially true when one of them is a list. Jclemens ( talk) 02:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC) reply

  What? It is not inappropiate to say that - these sources are about non-fiction. Lurking shadow ( talk) 11:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC) reply