Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xenofiction

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. Kizor, if you want to userfy this to work on under a non-neologistical title, feel free. No prejudice against a subsequent new version of this article with a better title and set of references. Neil ☎ 15:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Xenofiction

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

Neologism. The entire article consists of original research. For all intents and purposes, no reliable source uses the term.

In order for the works listed to be valid wikipedia entries, each item should reference to at least one source that refers to it as "Xenofiction". Otherwise, it is entirely original research. George100 20:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. —Quasirandom 22:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete as Neologism. George100's argument seems unanswerable. Springnuts 22:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Google Book search gives two unrelated hits plus a thesis. Google News did not return anything. Google search "xenofiction -wikipedia" gives 1300 hits. Some of the items talk about Xenosaga fan fiction and most of the sites that describe the term are not reliable (blogs, forums etc.)--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. That seems like an odd definition of "OR". To the best of my knowledge, a primary source is an acceptable one - they're vital with works of fiction, in fact - by itself if the casual reader of the work can be reasonably expected to agree with the statements in the article in question. Surely that applies here? --Kizor 00:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• It's OR for the works to be labeled as Xenofiction by wikipeida editors. For example, a novel or film is not labeled "Romance" or "Science Fiction" because you, I, or any casual reader thinks that label applies; it's because reliable sources, such as critics, professional writers, or journalists have done so. --George100 07:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Must we then require a critic's explicit confirmation before we can describe a light-hearted work full of jokes as a comedy? OR (which was originally for defense against crackpot theories, insofar as that's meaningful) allows Wikipedians' descriptions when a layman reader "should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source." We can do that by describing works that diverge significantly from humanity's perspective, without "novel interpretation."
  There was previously a similar concern about our coverage of joke political parties and the grounds on which we should be allowed to determine what qualifies as one or doesn't. It was settled as it became clear that there are two distinct groups of parties, one of which deals with political issues while the other nominates farm animals as leaders and seeks to repeal the law of gravity, and that there's no ambiguity about what counts. There's little here, and if that's not enough, inclusion criteria (again) can reasonably be erected and the entries evaluated case-by-case. Many articles, such as This featured list, have cut-off points that are fairly arbitrary but explicit and produce very few false positives. --Kizor 04:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Must we then require a critic's explicit confirmation before we can describe a light-hearted work full of jokes as a comedy?

I can't imagine any notable comedy not being described as such by some reliable source. It's possible there are exceptions, but they're not the rule. Meanwhile to my knowledge there's not so much as a single source referring to any of these entries as Xenofiction.

Furthermore, the definition of comedy is very clear and has been established for centuries. As far as I can tell, the definition of Xenofiction was created by the originator of the article.

This article was created 4 years ago [1]. I added a tag requesting sources 2 months ago. None has been added, most likely because there are none. --George100 08:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Two months isn't much, especially on a

2 months isn't all that much. I recently referenced and rewrote parts of an article that had needed it for 18. I found what I'd consider a non-trivial mention in The Stranger (newspaper), which says: Robert A. Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land established a high-water mark in the realm of xenofiction, or science fiction that tells of aliens to sentient animals and how their societies differ from humanity. It goes on to describe Stranger in more detail. And this forum message shows the term in use in 2000, before Wikipedia's founding blah blah blah blah blah I'd love to stay and discuss but I've unsurprisingly pushed myself way past my endurance with schoolwork and am not very capable of coherent thought right now. I will endeavour to form the argument once I get up. I ask that this remain unclosed if it has a risk of being closed, as a vital new part of the issue is still not properly addressed, much like fundamental changes in AfD'd articles must be addressed in the AfDs. Also, geez. --Kizor 23:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

As RLetson mentions below, the Stranger article is from July 2007, most likely the author found the term on wikipedia. The firedrake.org posting is from 2000, but it's the only use of that term to be found on that Mailing list. It's not like an entire thread of people discussing the term.

Searching google newsgroups for the term, there are a total of only 18 uses of "Xenofiction" [2], almost all of which refer to a defunct subdomain of an ISP (xenofiction.f2s.com). --George100 08:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Kizor asked in a message whether I object to the term or the concept. My problem is with the term, which is not part of any critical discussion I'm aware of. It's a classic example of a term that someone invented and inserted in Wikipedia. There is a whole vocabulary of literary taxonomy, and "xenofiction" isn't part of it at this time. Which is not to say that it might not be in the future--but it's not the function of WP to establish such terms but to document them once they are in use and can be sourced. The concept may represent a valid logical category and maybe even an interesting topic of discussion, but I don't think WP is a venue for such discussions (outside the talk pages, anyway). If you want an example of an emergent term, look at "mundane science fiction," which really is in the process of moving from an in-group phrase to more general use in the SF community. As for the idea that a category (which is what "xenofiction" is) by itself is suitable for inclusion here: what about the category "three legged dogs"? "Ill-fitting shoes"? RLetson 18:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Later: There are a couple applicable points at WP:NEO, particularly in the section "Reliable sources for neologisms." The term does not appear in the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction or Wolfe's Critical Terms for Science Fiction and Fantasy or [Science Fiction Citations for the OED]. A side note on the term's appearance in The Stranger: I suspect that particular example was influenced by the WP article, as are some of examples that pop up via Google. The rewrite/improvement that Kizor and DGG propose amounts to OR on an idea rather than an account of living terminology. RLetson 16:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and rewrite This is an important topic, but about half of SF deals with this class of theme, so i think the list of examples needs little work--I'm not sure there is any purpose in trying to enumerate all the examples from notable works in WP (as distinct from SF dealing only with extrapolated or postulated human behavior). It would be better to give an analysis of a few instance in an organized manner. DGG (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Reply The topic is important in what way? Wikipedia has guidelines for what is considered notable. I agree it's an interesting concept, but that's not enough.-George100 13:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete--A neologism not part of the critical/descriptive vocabulary I'm aware of. It might be someday, but not now. RLetson 22:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is an oddity. The name is an invention, but the concept is extant, significant and important for us to cover. My arguments about OR and sourcing are above. My "to-do" list is unfortunately full and I can't take on a rewrite at the time, but do have some ideas fore improving it. More data on the concept should be found in books, most easily by someone living in the States, and as DGG says the instances can use some organization; to start with, I'd like to see a clear differentiation between those with massively different circumstances (Redwall, Warriors? Haven't read them) and those with definitely foreign thought processes (Watership Down would not work at all with protagonists that acted like humans). Extra sources can certainly be found about the perspectives of these works. A tricky, but doable job... I think. --Kizor 04:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• There is no article on Alien cultures, although that may be covered by Extraterrestrial life in popular culture. An alien cultures article would likely be sufficiently notable.

There is an article on Alien invasion, which strikes me as imbalanced as this shows aliens in a negative light. -George100 15:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and WP:NEO. Doctorfluffy 04:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  Can you comment on the argument immediately above that the problem is the name, not the subject? --Kizor 04:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as there are no primary or secondary sources linking these books with this neogolism.--Gavin Collins 22:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

  Can you comment on the argument immediately above that the problem is the name, not the subject? --Kizor 00:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment lack of primary & secondary sources is a key concern; even for you. If the subject matter is "extant, significant and important", then what are the sources that are evidience of this? --Gavin Collins 20:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete it's OR and a neologism. SolidPlaid 00:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• And I found only one use of the term in the peer-reviewed literature: "Minor Angels: Toward an Aesthetics of Conflict" by Jean-Louis Hippolyte SubStance, Vol. 32, No. 2, Issue 101: Contemporary Novelist Antoine Volodine. (2003), pp. 67-78. [3] which uses it to refer to fiction about a human culture that is not one's own. So it seems unlikely that any sources will ever be found. SolidPlaid 00:22, 5 November 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.