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 no consensus. Even after discounting the few SPA votes, there is still no strong agreement on whether this is a notable neologism, although the "keep" side of the argument seems to have ever so slightly stronger arguments. Would recommend taking some time to clean up the article, get rid of bad references, clarify the definition, and then take another look at what it has become. -Scottywong| comment _ 17:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum fiction

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Quantum fiction (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)

Recreation of a deleted article as a vanity sop to a notorious spammer. Still a neologism without any substantial presence outside her spamming. Orange Mike | Talk 02:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
reply - take a closer look at those "references", Ron: many of them never mention the phrase; some are blogs; and at least one of them is either a copyright violation of the recreated article, or the recreated article is a copyright violation of the blog post! This thing reeks of bad original research and synthesis plus "referencing" by Google results dump. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we delete every article that used blogs as references there wouldn't be much left. I just tend to browse the refs to make sure that are more reliable, and see if the ref includes the data - a quick re-look gives velocityebooks.com, www.publishersweekly.com, www.changingplanes.net and plenty of others to more than satisfy WP guidelines for inclusion. Some may be small sites, but they are not all blogs.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I note that User:Tlogmer is now, sadly, deceased. Should this AfD result be keep, then I suggest a history merge with User:Tlogmer/Quantum_fiction to keep all the attributions together. I can do that if the community is in agreement.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: IMC.esq (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 01:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The assertion that these unrelated uses of the term form a "genre" is classic WP:SYNTH. -- 202.124.73.13 (talk) 11:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly all the usage, papers, books and discussion by sources are about 'quantum fiction' as a new literary genre.IMC.esq (talk) 20:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

talk (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Quantum Fiction article provides an overview of the use of the term “Quantum Fiction” as a developing classification for new works that explore unique narrative relationships with the reader as an observer. As written, the article attempts to prove that Quantum Fiction is a distinct genre. While this proposition is well supported by decent sourcing indicating that the term has been used in a variety of different places to mean a number of different things, nothing is presented which distinctly codifies Quantum Fiction as a distinct school.

According to the List of Literary Genres page, “Literary genres are determined by literary technique, tone, content and by critic definitions of the genres.” While the specific technique, tone and content aspects of Quantum Fiction as presented by the article are nebulous and therefore hard to establish, the references in the article itself definitely indicate the existences of a body of critique recognizing the term as appropriate for describing the character particular works. For this reason alone, an article should exist; Wikipedia lists over 45 different genres in its section on christian writing alone ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Christian_genres .)

The ambiguity surrounding the meaning of the term is, perhaps, not a bad thing. The root definition of the word quantum, from the 1610s, is “one’s share or portion.” ( http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=quantum&searchmode=none ) Thus, the term Quantum Fiction could be understood to mean any fiction which presents the world through the unique share of the perceptive apparatus allotted to the individual narrator. This idea, however, is never fully presented in the article itself. Likewise, the article presents a litany of different physicists who typify the type of thought embodied in Quantum Fiction, but fails to make any mention of Max Planck, the physicist who introduced the term quantum into the lexicon of the physical sciences (in 1900.)

I would edit the article to remove length, to better summarize the unpredictable nature of the term & its application, and to provide proper recognition of Max Planck as the grandfather of quantum theory. Also, I would remove any occurrences of WP:SYNTH that came about from the original author’s attempt to prove the immutability of the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owen_a_ferguson (talk • contribs) 16:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC) — Owen_a_ferguson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Reply: Good contribution on Planck and clarity. IMC.esq (talk) 15:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Comment: Regarding title you suggest predates the one listed, verification shows the author of Quarantine would not agree; category is "hard science fiction" (premise is built on a physical device in people's brains). In fact Egan writes: "That Quarantine's central premise is far from any mainstream view of quantum mechanics is excusable; every science fiction novel is entitled to one outrageous hypothesis." IMC.esq (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In my opinion, this article is obviously relelvant, there are several links, the page has a wealth of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultimatedriver (talk • contribs) 12:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC) User has since been blocked for disruptive editing.[reply]
And some keep votes are from Admins. I would suggest that Dravecky lets the closing admin make his own decisions based on the arguments put forward and not on the users - this is supposed to be a discussion on the article, even a WP:SPA can make a comment, it's up to the closing admin to how much weight (s)he gives those comments.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Don't speak on my behalf. I demonstrated a very clear grasp of the definition. And htom, who actually voted Keep, brought up an interesting point where a distinction was necessary. I also demonstrated a grasp of Literature and genres (see my contributions to list of literary genres. Compare what it looked like before my contribution). Very important distinction: just because one person is not clear on the definition or does not understand the article does not equal that it and all the secondary verifiable sources do not exist. IMC.esq (talk) 02:45, 28 June 2012 (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.
More