Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maritime science fiction

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2017 May 24.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Sandstein 07:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maritime science fiction

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of maritime science fiction media, this genre does not appear to have attracted any academic or critical attention. There are no hits on Google Scholar and no relevant hits on Google Books; all of the hits on Google News are by Andrew David Thaler, a scientist and author who appears to have invented the term. This is perhaps an example of an article created too soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- a badly sourced article about a premature neologism. Wikipedia is not for things you just madeup one day. Reyk _YO! 15:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 1#Category:Maritime science fiction. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, fine. I was going to wait for the Afds to conclude, but they should be considered together. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nobody disputes that science-fiction films can be set at sea, but there is no evidence that such a sub-genre has been identified and analyzed in a scholarly context, unlike space opera or steampunk for example. I don't see an avenue for the development of the article. Betty Logan (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Underwater science fiction or Undersea science fiction. Gscholar shows 0 hits for "maritime science fiction" but 13 hits for "Underwater science fiction" and 2 hits for "undersea science fiction". GBooks shows 588 hits for "undersea science fiction" and 230 hits for "underwater science fiction". It seems a genre more likely called underwater or undersea sci fi. Under these alternative names there seem sufficient reliable sources to discuss this genre. --Mark viking (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You seem to have identified that there are places on the 'net that use the phrase "underwater science fiction" and that is a good start, but it does not show that there are reliable sources about a genre of fiction by that name. I'm seeing a good number of lists on IMDb, Goodreads and such, a few blogs and a number of pages that are completely off-topic. I'm not really finding reliable sources for meaningful content about a genre by any of these names. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to Underwater science fiction or Undersea science fiction per Mark viking. If good-faithed, SummerPhDv2.0 failed to see Mark is referring to Google Scholar and Google Books hits, not crap "placed on the net." --PanchoS (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've found a few mentions of one or the other variants, but no meaningful content. Perhaps you can shed a bit of light on what you found. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator J Milburn, Reyk and Betty Logan. This is not an academically recognized genre. Also note that the related category was used to justify repeated edit warring in the lead of several articles. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This has enough citations as a stub and needs additional citations for expansion. A scientist who is cited is clearly an academic source. This is amongst the earliest kinds of science fiction going to 1800s. --Taeyebar 04:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you have misunderstood the nature of the citations. They are not to academic work on science fiction (peer reviewed or otherwise). Further, while the scientist in question is an author of what he calls maritime science fiction, he is not, unless I'm mistaken, a scholar of literature. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a made-up term. The mere existence of a tiny handful of Google hits for two words strung together does not constitute the existence of a recognized category or concept. NO reference works on science fiction or literature in general recognize any such field or tradition. --Orange Mike | Talk 09:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep A major science fiction theme (together with spaceflight). And don't rename underwater since it can also be about using ordinary boats and ships travelling between islands. J 1982 (talk) 11:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Where are your references, please? Josh Milburn (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another website seems to acknowledge this in it's mention of sci-fi subgenres [1] probably from Wikipedia, but it shows that it's still acknowledged. I have dispatched an email to a science fiction author who talks about subgenres. Let's see what his reply is.--Taeyebar 05:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, a blog-like promotional site that copies material from Wikipedia will have material that is in Wikipedia. That this unreliable source found the material here says nothing about whether or not it should be here. I'm not sure what you think we will be able to do with any response you get from "a science fiction author". We need sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources to be able to write a reasonably detailed article, not copies of what we have on a blog or emails from an author. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This does not seem to be a recognized genre in independent reliable sources. As others have said, there are a few hits for variations of the phrase, but there doesn't seem to be in-depth coverage of it. We would need sources that describe the history, major works, and common themes. Instead, we get a few trivial mentions that point out that a science fiction story takes place underwater, much as people will clarify that a science fiction work takes place on the moon. Instead of lunar science fiction, we've got Moon in fiction (which is pretty terrible). Nautical fiction is a good enough home for this topic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We lack the number of sources discussing this is detail to demonstrate this is a recognized sub-genre worth having an article on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A list from good reads is not a workable source to show a sub-genre is recognized. The article cited has even bigger problems. He seems to be trying to show that the US navy naming ships "enterprise" has some link to science fiction. Of the 7 ships, 6 of them (including the air craft carrier he mentions) pre-date the first airing of star trek. Cause and effect are mixed, and so are the lines between "science fiction" and "adventure fiction".John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:46, 7 August 2016 (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.