Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum 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 was Keep - arguments about motives of editors aside, the consensus is clear and the article has sources. It would, however, benefit from a copyedit. B1atv 22:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC) (Non admin closure)

• Overriding improper non-admin close and closing as delete. --Coredesat 23:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quantum fiction

Quantum fiction (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Clearly written by the 'inventor' of this new genre UltimateXiphias 02:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Disagree about your speculation about this entry. IF the writer that Publishers Weekly attributed as inventing this genre did make this entry, however, they would be very qualified to do so. More importantly there is a lot of material on the subject that isn't in this entry and should be. Tikka72 08:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NEO. Neologism coined by the author of one novel. No indication that this is a real genre (that would require multiple books by multiple authors) or that the term is widely used. --Itub 09:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think this should be deleted because the genre has made its way into the market and culture stream. The Ophiuchi hotline by John Varley has recently been rebilled as (Quantum science fiction). The term is emerging in new titles and saw a master's thesis on it. Also see "quantum fiction and the suspension of disbelief" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikka72 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't deny that this may be an emerging term/genre, but I haven't seen enough sources to justify an article under Wikipedia's policies. If I'm proven wrong, I'll happily change my mind. Something that would help would be if the references were cited properly so that one could look them up. What does "American Library Association 1995" mean, for example? It would also be good if you could give more details regarding the master's thesis you mention. By "quantum fiction and the suspension of disbelief", are you referring to this blog post? If that's the case, I'm afraid that blog posts are not generally regarded as reliable sources. --Itub 07:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point that it needs more references. The one added now -- "Fiction in the Quantum Universe" by Susan Strehle -- is a very comprehensive reference and cogent to the article. Not sure what The American Library Association ref is. Will check it. But the entry should be a Wiki article for sure! This is great stuff.

You clearly haven't read "Fiction In The Quantum Universe" by Susan Strehle either. You should also read "Quantum Enigma" for that matter -- "Physics Encounters Consciousness" (Rosenblum & Kuttner). I'm obviously into this. There are also the films "What the Bleep" and "Down the Rabbits Hole" and Fred Alan Wolfe should also be covered in this entry. I started to enter some of what I perceive as very pertinent and important information.

Sorry I didn't sign earlier. Tikka72 08:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

ITub great suggestions and led to more fascinating references and relevance. Will check back when I find the thesis and additional references. Also found the St. Petersburg Times article about quantum fiction from 1996, cited now. very cool. Tikka72 08:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• OBJECTION - Do not delete. The reasons are self-evident. The request for deletion is clearly uninformed and seems to have a subjective bias, possibly article requested for deletion by someone who may have a personal tie or grudge or wishes they'd thought of it;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ribofizz (talk • contribs) 09:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It's probably better to comment on the evidence for the notability of this topic in the context of Wikipedia policies and guidelines (such as notability and neologisms), and not on the possible motivations of the requester. And no, the reasons are not self evident, so please elaborate. --Itub 10:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• OK will list evidence of the notability and my KEEP vote belowRibofizz 13:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. This is clearly written by the creator of the "genre", whose wikipedia page should also be deleted (or severely edited---it seems inappropriate that the author of a self-published novel that's been thrashed by the science-fiction community has an article longer than Proust's). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.167.237.65 (talk) 10:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• KEEP Just read the references and facts on the genre and the novel. IP user 63.167.237.65 misrepresents a book was thrashed by "the sf community" and is more than likely one of the three or four people who tried to get the book banned, have been cyberbullying and vandalizing trying to make it seem that they are the entire SF world. They can be tracked back years, the same few people. The SF community knows very well who these few people are. Check out IP user 63.167.237.65-- blocked for vandalizing multiple times and for libel and slander. Look at the user contributions. The rhetoric is the same in all postings these few people have been making trying to discredit the author, the novel that defined quantum fiction and the innovative and positive response to the genre. Discern between obvious sour grapes (to be nice) and what rings of the fallacious slander of ambitious competitors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ribofizz (talkcontribs) 11:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Very strong: The genre was critically noted, specifically by Publishers Weekly in 1996, PW is the leading literary trade magazine, reviewed Bonta's debut novel and introduction to 'quantum fiction' worthy and of note, wrote, quote: "whatever QF is, we need more of it."

The American Library Association celebrated the work, reviewed it in Booklist, acknowledging the innovative genre (NOTE: the review should be cited in this article, it describes it as "genre-bending"), 1996. Those two facts alone qualify it as notable. The coinage of 'quantum fiction' by Bonta's debut novel set a precedent that -- at the time was an unknown and unrealized even though quantum theory appeared in fiction, it did not embrace the factor of actualism, as "Fiction In The Quantum Universe" by Susan Strehle argues. When Bonta came out with it, she was embraced, love, congratulated, and had the backlash that comes with that, ridicule/cyber bullies trying to discourage fans.

Time has since proven an emerging trend, e.g. "what the Bleep", and the titles explored within that context. Even without the additional citations this article needs there is sufficient support for the entry to remain by the trade book reviews by the Library association and Publishers Weekly. The title Flight Quantum fiction was also presented internationally by a professor who was a colleague of David Bohm's -- don't see that citation in this article but it should be and will look it up when I have time.Ribofizz 13:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that these facts are more cogent to the discussion but it also is of note that User 63.167.237.65 has been blocked by Wikipedia multiple times for Vandalism, and that the things repeated are the same 2-note malice tune.

• Keep per WP:NEO. It isn't neologism referenced in books, lectures, literary criticisms and articles, at least 9 (nine) of which are cited (so far). Added some. dont ' have time to add all but may come back Alberto5key 16:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Quantum delete keep Will ^(talk) 16:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

lol :) Alberto5key 16:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Appears to be a real genre, and is sourced adequately. Authorship of the article is irrelevant, it should be improved if not written NPOV. - Crockspot 15:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Still too NEO for me. Coined as a vehicle for promoting one novel by one (not-that-famous) writer, and largely remains so, despite efforts to retroactively add famous authors to the genre. Though a couple of people are pushing the term, it doesn't seem to have caught on yet. --Groggy Dice T | C 02:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

•  :comment and (Keep)

You need to make the distinction between "to promote" vs. "to define".

The novel (plot, technique, dissertation and context) of the defining work of quantum fiction (by the writer who coined it) wasn't a vehicle to promote, it is quantum fiction. Subsequent studies and analysis of the subject (by Wilson Harris, Susan Strehle etc) support, analyze, explore and categorized quantum fiction. The trades reviewing the coining writer's work (American Library Association, Publishers Weekly, etc) in 1995 discuss the hybrid-genre aspects and the new genre. Genre.

They were contributed as sources. Wilson Harris (who I hadn't heard of before either) writes in 2002 he realizes he is writing "quantum fiction". These sources are journalists, poets, literary devotees, peers, different measure than 'famous to the masses'. All are recognized.

The argument that these new citations and more information about the genre were added retroactively isn't Wiki-worthy thinking. All Wikipedia articles are evolving. Additional references, citations and reading resources are contributed out of interest and because of iTUBS recommendation that this article needed them. Ribofizz 08:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Conflict of interest is not a deletion criterion; it appears verifiably notable and is based on published sources.--ragesoss 17:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note: I've struck through all of Ribofizz's redundant votes to reduce confusion. You should only vote once, although you can add additional comments, of course. --Itub 09:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC) *Thank you iTub. I removed your strike through my Comment above. Sorry about the Keep redundancy. I was leaving new Comments, and they stand. Ribofizz 19:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Original authors As the original authors of this entry, we'll add one more point of discussion that other contributors cannot address: We are not Vanna Bonta. Take a look at our company website (preciseedit.com), and you will see why this criticism is not likely to be true. Please, in the spirit of making Wikipedia useful and powerful, please check the validity of your criticisms before posting them. (Note: We found that same criticism on the Vanna Bonta entry and addressed it there, as well.) Preciseedit 17:53, 22 October 2007 (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.