Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian science 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The result was   Keep - nomination withdrawn. (Non-admin closure)  Jim Miller  See me 23:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Christian science fiction

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Prod contested.

As the many tags note: 1) this term is not current amoungst SF critics (it is not found in the Encylopedia of Science Fiction. Hence it is Original research and a neologism. 2) It has no sources, so fails to establish notability or verifiability. 3) It is inherently NPOV for wiipedia to assign authors or works to a specific religion catergory without sources, and to make up a genre for one religion but not others. This can and is be covered at the NPOV Religion in SFand religious ideas in science fiction articles, but has no info worth merging to either. Every genre doesn't have a christian sub-type - this isn't Christian rock, whic does exist. Yobmod (talk) 15:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   —Jclemens (talk) 15:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.   —Jclemens (talk) 15:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.   —Jclemens (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 *  Keep  as prod contester.
 * (Vote changed below)

And I know this probably does not count as a reliable source but Barnes & Noble does list Christian Science Fiction & Fantasy as a separate category on their web site.--Captain-tucker (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The lack of mention in one source is hardly proof of non-notability.  I will be searching for additional RS to add.  Further, Notability is not temporary, so older RS will work just as well--the term need not be in current usage to be encyclopedic.
 * 2) That is a reason for cleanup, rather than deletion. The article has been so tagged, and I (and hopefully others) will be addressing those concerns.
 * 3) If there are ample RS'es for "Christian Science Fiction" as a sub-genre (as any student of C.S. Lewis knows there will be), then the article has sufficient notability to stand on its own. Religion in speculative fiction (note that Religion in science fiction is merely a redirect to that article) is a one-paragraph stub, and if this were (once cleaned up, of course) merged to thart article, it would place WP:UNDUE weight on one particular religious viewpoint in science fiction.  Note that List of religious ideas in science fiction is about Christianity as a subject for science fiction, rather than a perspective or authorial motivation, which is what Christian science fiction should be about. Jclemens (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, The article has some issues which is the purpose of the cleanup tags but the subject is notable. Here are some sources that either discuss the term or use it to describe literature:
 * Note:WP:WikiProject Novels and WP:WikiProject Novels/Science fiction task force have been notified of this discussion. --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Note that the nominator failed to mention that he created Religion in speculative fiction‎, to which religion in SF redirects, less than 20 minutes before creating this AfD. Yobmod, you are invited to comment on your rationale for recommending that this article be deleted in favor of an article you had just then created. Jclemens (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I created the religion in Sf article, using sources. this lead me to the christian SF article, whic after many months still has no sources. Checking my encylopedias indicated that christian Sf was not a notable term. The articles have different topics. christianity isn't the only religion in the world. The fact that you only decided to verify its notability AFTER multiple editors has comments and the article had been proded and submitted for AfD is hardly my fault. Try improving articles rather than focusing on editors.Yobmod (talk) 23:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Had you disclosed that tidbit first, this query would have been unnecessary. Arguing that an article you're proposing be deleted be redirected to deleted in favor of an article you just started, without disclosing that fact, is hardly collegial editing.  Note that the time between when you started an article and advocated it be redirected is roughtly the same amount of time between when I declined prod and you posted the AfD--that is, hardly sufficient time to gather sources.  I'm sorry, but based on these responses it seems appropriate for me to change my vote to Speedy Keep: bad faith nomination, no others in support because you're using the sources identified in this AfD to boost the article you started, demonstrating that you personally believe the topic to be notable. Jclemens (talk) 00:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * yawn, those sources weren't there when i nominated. It shouldn't be a redirect, i never said it should be, its a different topic.Yobmod (talk) 00:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Statement amended, vote stands. Jclemens (talk) 01:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As citations now exist, i withdraw my nom. notability shown.Yobmod (talk) 13:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Amen to its notability. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a very definite genre and warrants rescuing, not deleting. Although how someone manages to write an article on Christian Science Fiction without mentioning by far the most notable example of the genre is beyond me. – iride  scent  01:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Captain-tucker and Iridescent. Banj e  b oi   09:35, 2 August 2008 (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.