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  07:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of maritime science fiction media[edit]

List of maritime science fiction media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Made-up genre based on one fansite article and a smidgin of original research. Orange Mike | Talk 00:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. Also should take a look at the newly created Category:Maritime science fiction films, which was used to justify changing the genre in the lead of articles such as Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, Leviathan (1989 film) and The Abyss. - Gothicfilm (talk 03:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. After looking through the Google search results, I'm inclined to agree that this is a made-up genre. Google Books is good at showing at least a few good hits for most genres. I've found sources there on fairly obscure stuff. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per NinjaRobotPirate. I had a quick google too and the phrase seems to be used by a handful of blogs/fansites. No authoritative coverage. Betty Logan (talk) 07:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- Made up genre. Nothing to justify inclusion here. Reyk _YO! 08:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Save as draft or keep It was created too early and all the editors I invited to contribute were away, so this can be put up later, if necessary.--Taeyebar 23:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Saving it to draft does not address the reason for nomination: it is only worth saving if the subject satisfies notability, and nobody here is convinced that it does. Betty Logan (talk) 00:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Taeyebar used the category to return today and change the lead yet again at Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea and The Abyss. For him this is an excuse to edit war. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Betty Logan, I think it does because it's obviously not properly sourced yet. I think it was written too prematurely. Saving it as a draft would give us time to build on it before publishing it again.--Taeyebar 02:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep though I guess this is a lost cause, we do have a main article stub and a Google search for nautical science fiction also turns up additional results. With 20000 Leagues Under the Sea and its various spin offs, Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, my beloved childhood Stingray (TV series), and so on, I do believe there's a bona fide subgenre there and I think with various search terms for alternate titles, enough to build a list. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, also, if there's not enough notability for a list, there's an even higher bar of "definingness" for categories: So if this list goes then surely Category:Maritime science fiction needs to go to Cfd. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the risk of sounding badgery, I'd just like to point out that Maritime science fiction was created by the same editor, and has the same sourcing issues, as this list. Reyk _YO! 17:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • For sure. Yes, it's perhaps a bit odd in my opinion to start with the list, but if there's a fundamental problem with the main topic then all three have to go, surely. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Changed it to a "weak" keep, too... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and I fear that someone should nominate the article on the genre, too; this doesn't seem to be recognised as an independent genre by journalists, critics or academics. Nothing on Google Scholar, nothing relevant on Google Books, and every hit on Google News refers to Andrew David Thaler (an academic and author who writes books in the genre and blogs at Southern Fried Science, which our article cites). Perhaps the term will gain some traction in the future, but I fear that we can't support an article yet. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Exploring the waters is a common science fiction theme. J 1982 (talk) 12:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: People participating in this discussion may be interested in the newly-opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maritime science fiction. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • And Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 1#Category:Maritime science fiction. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to List of underwater science fiction media or List of undersea science fiction media. 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) 22:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- non encyclopedic list with unclear purpose. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:16, 6 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.