Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of hard science fiction films and television


 * 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. Userfication available upon request.  Jujutacular  talk 05:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

List of hard science fiction films and television

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article seems to be a completely arbitrary list of random fiction, that are only tied together by a list of "rules" that seem to have no justification aside from what the author made up himself. The actual article on Hard science fiction itself contains no such rules, and the only source listed is a single book that links to its page to purchase from Amazon. The article thus seems to be Original Research, and fails Notability. Rorshacma (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC) *Delete see below. on the grounds that the topic is adequately covered in the article Hard Science Fiction which has a list of "Representative works". Also it looks v much like Original Research. I quite enjoyed reading it, but sorry... Tigerboy1966 (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 22.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  20:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - the article contains seemingly arbitrary rules for classifying something as 'Hard' Sci-Fi. Without several references agreeing on a particular way to split hard from soft science fiction this list is really just opinion.  You could even argue that the article breaks it's own rules as some form of FTL or teleportation appears to have occurred at the end of 2001: A Space Odyssey, and yet this movie was included in the list.--Stvfetterly (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Arbitrary. Neutralitytalk 21:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or Userfy Some of these rules may have come out of the source below, but even then, I agree with Stvfetterly that some agreement of what is classified as hard science fiction needs to be determined beyond just a single source per WP:LISTN: A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. The author might consider a complete rewrite of this list based on what is written in the sources found at Hard science fiction.  I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 21:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. The section with "Representative works" in the article Hard Science Fiction does not list any films. In principle the content of an article like this should be mergeable to that article to form a new subsection "Films", and indeed such a subsection could be a valuable addition. Altogether I'm not averse to "merge and redirect". I have a bit of a problem, though, with the criteria and choices here, which have a high OR character. The essential criterion for SF being "hard", in my opinion, is twofold: (1) science plays an essential role in the plot, and (2) the science of the story is compatible with (a sufficiently plausible extrapolation of) known science. So no magic, ESP, perpetua mobilia, and warp drives. But Higgs bosons, although today not "known" science, would be OK. But part (1) is also needed, and for example Brazil and Fight Club fall short on (1). --Lambiam 22:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Do not delete. Edit. Many thanks for your comments.  I will take a closer look at the sources found at Hard science fiction.  I agree that the article I started is not fully developed, but not arbitrary or original research.  I wrote it when I found links to miscellaneous sub-genres of science fiction film on List of science-fiction films but not to sci fi productions that generally tried to avoid breaking the laws of physics.  Rather than delete the article, please consider contributing to it if you think that there is such a thing as a hard sci fi sub-genre.  I do not mean the article to trash soft sci fi, by the way, as I love Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, and Star Trek, et al.  To start the article, I provided criteria (to be discussed and modified), a section for exemptions, and a list of films/ shows that seemed to represent the sub-genre, and a justification for each.  Reviewing the list of films in List of science-fiction films, I saw that there was flexibility in what counts as sci fi and that there is a lack of distinction between science fiction and fantasy, at the very least.  I believe that providing criteria and a justification (plus exceptions) for each film, that the hard sci fi list can be more than a long, arbitrary, catch-all list.  Regarding 2001, I would include the comment as an exception in the "justification" and note that it happens right at the end of the film with other soft SF Hollywood bells, whistles, and handwavium--it is an imperfect world.  To quote Hard science fiction, "There is a degree of flexibility in how far from "real science" a story can stray before it leaves the realm of hard SF."  The page would be improved by adding references to film and literature criticism; however, please bear in mind that it is primarily a list and that it already refers to Hard science fiction, where there is a discussion of hard versus soft.  Given that this new article links to the Wiki page for each film and provides a description of what justifies its hard sci fi designation, I believe it to be at least as well referenced as the list of representative novels on Hard science fiction; both lists can be improved and referenced if it is true that there is a hard sci fi sub-genre in both literature and film.  I specifically prepared the criteria to avoid overlap with space opera (requiring FTL travel) and films about superheros, time travel, and magic.  Again, I appreciate the time you spent reviewing the list.  If it does get deleted, I hope that you or someone else will create a better list for the hard science fiction sub-genre.  I believe there are enough films to populate the list and that the sci fi community has a sense of the distinctiveness of the sub-genre and can select appropriate works.  I did my best as a novice article-writer; it was a sincere effort to fill a void.
 * Comment. I agree with your two points, Lambiam. I got distracted when I saw Brazil on List of science-fiction films.  Fight Club and V for Vendetta can be deleted too, unless somebody recalls any "Cutting edge Present Day Tech…some developments and speculation, but nothing major that has not been attained today…very near future." (Ref, [])  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woods1630 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge as film section of Hard Science Fiction, in line with User:Lambian's perceptive comments. The point is that while the items in a list don't need sourcing, the criteria do; and the HSF article is the natural home for those. And the list requires strict pruning down to hard SF, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Chiswick Chap's merge suggestion looks fine to me, striking delete.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 00:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete This is really a WP:Soapbox to rail against the low standards of popular science fiction type material. I am sympathetic but it does not belong in an encyclopedia. Notable listed items should be mentioned in Hard science fiction itself. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge per Chiswick Chap. Jclemens (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The term is basically used as an inclusive genre term, or critical perspective, for some SF writing. its not used for films, for the most part, at least to give them a firm category or genre. its not a genre of film. the inclusion criteria here are completely absurd, baseless, not sourced, thus arbitrary and completely subjective. the list, of course, is so small as to be meaningless, and I can guarantee that for many editors, 20k/sea and v/vendetta would never be considered as Hard SF. To be honest, for real fans of SF, there are practically no hard sf films, period. There are films which use hard sf tropes, or themes, to flesh out their story, but the stories are not driven by narrowly defined technical parameters. the closest film to hard sf is Apollo 13, which of course isnt sf. Maybe there is one hard sf film, The Quiet Earth (film), but its not based on verifiable science.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Edit or Merge. I have updated the list.  If half of the entries are removed, I believe there are enough to indicate that hard SF is a legitimate sub-genre of film as well as literature.  If the criteria are restricted to current technology and verifiable science, it is true, that there might be no films at all.  I do not agree that the criteria are absurd or baseless if hard SF is taken as fiction based on plausible technologies or scenarios.  If there is only one hard SF film, then I agree that there is no basis for a film sub-genre.  Rather than creating a soapbox from which to rail against the more fantasy-based sci fi that I also enjoy, I hoped the list to include films that made a special effort to be realistic.  In terms of what is on the list, I feel least comfortable with the biological/ apocalyptic/ zombie and near-future social-change material; for some of those I make reference to the List of science-fiction films to argue that they might be sci fi and to [] to argue that some might be considered "Present Day Tech Science Fiction" or "Ultra Hard / Diamond Hard Science Fiction".  P.s. For my own consumption, since I'm not having much success finding hard SF films that I haven't seen, please let me know if you have any suggestions.    Woods1630 (talk) 07:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Note After some changes the article now mainly lists dystopian works, nothing wrong with that but not really science fiction as others have noted. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * After checking out dystopian, I see that I had somewhat misunderstood the word's meaning. I thought it meant any story set in a future society worse than the present. Most of the films and series are these, or deal with people's reaction to some problem -- like nuclear war or disease outbreak. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment, I have relisted this discussion rather than closing as a no consensus between delete/merge because the article continues to be edited and it looks like it may be possible to come to an agreeable consensus on this one. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC).
 * Delete. Using arbitrary rules apparently decided only by the author makes this article original research. J I P  &#124; Talk 08:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and userfy. Considered WP:OR, but sources could probably be found if someone wanted to look for them (e.g. the page creator). dalahäst (talk) 11:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per User:JIP Pol430  talk to me 16:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. The current list still has a high OR level; in particular, the "justifications" are pure and unadulterated OR. Post-apocalyptic fiction, which has a heavy presence on the list, generally does not use (plausibly extrapolated) science as its backbone and thus fails an essential criterion for being "hard". What is really needed for this list to survive – preferably as a section in Hard Science Fiction – are examples of SF films that are described as "hard SF" by reliable sources. --Lambiam 20:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - It's basically a POV fork to champion one particular definition of hard scifi. Kuguar03 (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Reluctant Delete – I agree it seems PoV-ish in nature, but the idea seems good. It needs to be rewritten in a more neutral/unbiased form based on authoritative viewpoints. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The concept of "hard" SF is very clear, very basic to all understanding of the genre, and covered in all sources discussing the general subject. The list is therefor appropriate. Individual items, as always, can be discussed on the talk page. (I know it sounds vague to those unfamiliar with the study of the subject, who just read the works. But we're an encyclopedia, and go beyond that naïve approach to literature.)  DGG ( talk ) 08:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. Agreed that the current article is unacceptably OR.  I'd like to keep it for now, but if it remains the way it is after six months, I'd be inclined to delete without prejudice.  Matchups 02:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: That "hard SF" is an extant term is not in dispute, but that's not the point of the AfD. The point is that there is no consensus definition of the term, and as such a list claiming to be based on the term cannot be validly sourced.  Like with many a similar subjective term, I doubt you could get any five SF fans to agree on a definition, nor any five SF fans to agree that any given film meets it. That being said, for pity's sake, this is as obvious an essay, based on criteria solely chosen and solely interpreted by the article's creator, as I've seen in my seven years on Wikipedia.  It's screamingly illegitimate original research, and I'm astonished that anyone could advocate keeping it.  (Which, in fact, very few people have, and I'm likewise astonished that this AfD has been held open for three weeks with such a strong consensus to Delete.)  Ravenswing  11:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. If this goes on for a few days more I'm tempted to invoke WP:SNOW and close this discussion. J I P  &#124; Talk 07:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I have not been able to find reliable sources labelling even a single film as being "hard SF". Apparently, neither has anybody else, including the article's creator. Merging is therefore not an option. If we remove all unsourceable content – which, in this case, is not only unsourceable, but also obviously based solely on the disputable opinions of just one random editor – only the title will remain, which will make the article speediable anyway. --Lambiam 17:11, 13 January 2012 (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.