Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naturalistic science fiction

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 of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naturalistic science fiction

Recent and non-notable neologism, coined by author of one of the two or three works that may be classified under the term. The article is mostly a paraphrase of the essay coining the word, and as such serves as somewhat of an advertisement for the works. The term gets only 330 hits on Google with pages mentioning Wikipedia removed (460 otherwise), and has no verifiable source, with the only source being an essay coining the term (the other source listed doesn't use the term at all, and was written years before the term was coined). Most of the distinctions described in the article are already described in the articles pertaining to the works. Delete Constantine Evans 10:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Arbusto 10:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. PJM 12:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 12:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. RLetson 16:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Except the author happens to be Ronald D. Moore and the main work in question is Battlestar Galactica (re-imagining). That instantly gave the term weight whether it deserved it or not. The article is crap and probably should be hacked down to a stub, but AfD is not the place for this. For what it's worth, my own Google search excluding Wikipedia came back with 1320 results. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 19:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The author's notability doesn't affect the notability of the term. Per the nom, this doesn't appear to have actually carried enough weight to be included in any verifiable sources. At the current time, that means the article should be deleted, not stubbed. If the term finds greater notability later, it may be appropriate to recreate the article. --Constantine Evans 21:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• From the article: "Although no major critics, reviews, or media publications ever made the criticisms above..." in fact, the whole topic seems to have been noticed only by fan blogs, a Wikipedia mirror, and the Moore-written BG 2003 website-for-fans where it first appeared. Not yet noted by reliable sources, so delete in full agreement with Constantine Evans. Barno 00:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep* The entire point behind NSF is that it is a reaction to the pseudo-science technobabble in Star Trek. Once BSG started being promoted as having a "realistic scientific slant" to it, we've constantly been beating back a wave of attacks on it by scientific experts who point out how it isn't *exactly* accurate (it is a tv show)......but they ignore the entire crux of the situation, which is that it is *more* realistic than Star Trek was.--->I notice that Evans is not an Administrator, and moreover, is part of the Wikipedia Physics Project. This is just another attack on NSF by technical experts who had their ire raised when the show claimed to be scientifically realistic. In short, there is amble evidence here due to Evans prominent role in the Physics project that his call for a deletion of this article was a "politically" motivated ploy. One more outburst like this and I'm going to slap a fandom category tag onto this, rendering its criteria for existence far more loose.--Ricimer 09:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith here, as I've never actually seen the show. The problem here is with notability (there is hardly any use of the term) and verifiability (there are no reliable sources). The essay coining the term doesn't count as a reliable source under WP:V. The text could certainly be incorporated into one of the main BSG articles, and this would make sense, since it is what the show is trying to do. But the term is really just a non-notable neologism, and not a real subgenre, regardless of who created it. --Constantine Evans 15:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I agree with the assessments that the term itself isn't widespread outside of the whole controversy surrounding the reimagined BSG. The essay by Ronald D. Moore in which he coined the term is widely based of his personal frustration regarding his tenure with Star Trek which, admittedly, at the time, was at it's worst point in it's long history regarding scriptwriting. I am not against Moore's naturalistic SF philosophy being mentioned in the article for the reimagined BSG. By all means, it should also be expanded on in Moore's own wiki article. Moore's essay is almost three years old and it hasn't caught on in common usage within the genre, other than referring to Moore and HIS Galactica. The term cyberpunk, on the other hand, was quietly coined by William Gibson without a lot of bluster. Neverthless, peers and fans still somehow caught on to the term on their own. What Moore has done is simply a variation on an existing theme: Using SF to address contemporary political and social issues. Deep Space Nine, Bablyon 5, Legend of the Galactic Heroes, Dune only to name a few that have come before. As much as I put into this article regarding some of the cons of NSF, I hate to do this, but this isn't just about any one of us editors.Mr. ATOZ 15:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Mr. Atoz. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 06:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; although I've contributed to this article, I reluctantly agree that it's a neologism that hasn't gained widespread use outside of Moore's essay. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

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.