Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of stories set in a future now past


 * 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. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

List of stories set in a future now past

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Textbook trivia and cruft. (Note, I listified this from an earlier CfD). ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: It's a fascinating reference, lovingly maintained by interested parties. Czolgolz (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 22:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 22:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep given the number of media article write-ups on the accuracy or inaccuracy of predicted future events as the years come to pass. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 22:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems like a perfectly valid list, wondering if the title could be improved perhaps. Ajf773 (talk) 23:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm hardly a disinterested party, but I feel this list has value as a historiographical examination of our perceptions of the future.  Serendi pod ous  00:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep GNG met, list entirely composed of notable elements. I just don't get the nomination rationale. Jclemens (talk) 05:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a list of stories which have a tenuous and arbitrary common denominator. Could you imagine List of stories with no one named Barry in it? ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * delete A review of the contents reveals that the defining principle lumps together a lot of things that aren't much like each other. Is it even meaningful that Airport 1975 is set one year ahead of when it was released? there's a fair number of cases where a date a few years off (or even pretty far in the future, at the time) was used as a proxy for an alternate present: Nineteen Eighty-Four could with some justification be so classed, and Death of a President certainly fits this pattern. Is anyone really aware that Carrie was ostensibly set in the future? And to take an extreme case, 12 Monkeys is for all intents set first of all in a distant future, with excursions into the (then) present. There's perhaps a purpose for a list of works set in a (then) distant future whose vision of a world to come has since been overcome by events, but simply having been set in the future long enough ago is not a good enough principle to go by. Mangoe (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Technological advance was not universally synonymous with futurism until about the 1940s. Sure you had exceptions like HG Wells and Jules Verne but generally people had few reasons to assume that the future would be substantially different from their presents before then. I agree that this table probably should have more stringent entry requirements, but that would require a change of title, not deleting the article.  Serendi pod ous  16:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is why there's a statement up front in the lead paragraph and on the talk page about excluding contemporary-setting works, set a year or two ahead, unless it pertains specifically to some event like the 2012 phenomena or makes some statement about future society. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've removed 12 Monkeys and Airport 1975 from the list. I agree that's probably within contemporary given the film was released the year before.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think some of the Doctor Who episodes fall in the contemporary, but again, those can be scrubbed, or cited if they are to stay as with the Terminator Genisys entry. The point is that writers have been making up lists to compare future and past, especially on works like 1984, 2001, and Back to the Future.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I know that "that's neat!" isn't a WP policy, but that is a really neat page that captures a phenomenon that I've thought about a few times but never thought to search for. PohranicniStraze (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per OR. Note that the only common theme of the references is the track record of fictional depictions/predictions, good or bad, about the future, none that appear to be about "stories set in a future now past". A list could be compiled of the former, not the latter. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand the list criteria: fiction, written in the past, set in the then-future, when that then-future has now been surpassed by the march of time. At some point in 300+ years from now, Star Trek will join the list, 50ish years after Babylon 5 does, IIRC. Star Wars doesn't count, because it it set in a galaxy far, far away. Simple and obvious calculations are not OR. Jclemens (talk) 07:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand my point. None of the references are for "stories set in a future now past", so this is a made-up criterion, hence OR. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The references would have to specifically be about how the story is set in a future that is past for the article to be notable.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - Interesting concept, but largely original research, especially the dates, and has little encyclopedic value. Some entries with trivia like "correctly predicted X" seem to endorse psychic pseudoscience, as though the books were written by prophets. There is no delineation between important works of sci-fi and random cartoons. There is no particular reason why the exact dates that stories about the future are set in are important, nor does the article claim there is.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but "prediction" does not mean "psychic powers." Scientists make predictions all the time. And yes, science fiction writers make correct predictions all the time. Some coin words that eventually come into common parlance, like "robot", "robotics" or "cyberspace". And I don't know where you're getting the OR from the dates from. Certainly not from any that I added in.  Serendi pod ous  21:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm still not sure what makes this original research? Writers place a date or year in their fictional work and then says something about the society. The year comes to pass. A writer from a secondary source independent of the subject writes a news article discussing the work and how it compares the society with how the actual society turned out. If a prediction was listed as correct, it is cited by the news article writer making the claim, not the Wikipedia editor checking accuracies. The news article writers also present lists of films, video games, or books when the year has passed.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 02:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - There is plenty of research into the predictions of science fiction and what it means when predictions for periods set in a future now past have or haven't come to fruition (for instance, parts of Morgan, Chris. The shape of futures past: the story of prediction. Webb & Bower, 1980.). Smmurphy(Talk) 15:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out, the track record of predictions is fine, but that's not what this list purports to be. Reread the criteria. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep very strong keep. Beside the fact this is important historically and academically no clear reason for deletion. And more importantly most of the entries are sourced (passes verifiability). All the articles are linked (passes notability. There is not reason for deleting this, except WP:ITSCRUFT–Ammarpad (talk) 08:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ironic that you would say that considering this is basically WP:ILIKEIT. You nor the article have made a convincing argument as to why it is important historically and academically. Attempting to predict the near future is a hallmark of a very large amount of sci-fi, so the fact that stories do it is not particularly special.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The person who'll close this will determine whether I am expressing WP:ILIKEIT or otherwise. I want it to be kept because it's "verifiable" and "notable" and had stated this clearly. Anything that satisfy these two criteria can have its other problems solved by fixing. I actually don't understand your remaining entences or how they relate to me. But you shouldn't be replying everybody considering your comment above contains only WP:ITSCRUFT and WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Considering you are the only person I replied to, I don't see how I am bludgeoning anything. I simply wanted to know why you felt so strongly about keeping the article, because your rationale for keeping is simply that there was no reason to delete and doesn't have any reason to keep. However, I did not just say "it's unencyclopedic" but also gave a reason that I think it is unencyclopedic, that there is nothing particularly special about the grouping of works in the list because most of all sci-fi works will choose some date as the setting for their imagined future and just doing that is not special or meaningful.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Considering that I gave my reason and again repeated it for your sake, but you still claim I didn't give any reason, no need to repeat it for the third time. I just hope the closer may be able to see it. Also, contrary to your claim; I am not the only one whom you replied to, but I am not ready to argue, in case you started arguing that you're not the one in this diff. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:47, 13 December 2017 (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.