Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Self-replicating machines in 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 no consensus. Those arguing for deletion are right that the article is a mess. This by itself is not a strong argument for deletion and I don't think there is clear consensus for WP:TNT. Those arguing to keep the article have clearly established that self-replicating machines are notable. Whether a list of self-replicating machines in fiction is separately notable and encyclopedic is still up for debate, and those arguing for keep are fairly convincing on this point; however, there is not clear consensus here either. I do not think that relisting this will result in additional clarity, so I am closing this debate as no consensus.  Malinaccier ( talk ) 21:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Self-replicating machines in fiction

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Another de facto list that fails WP:LISTN, a simple WP:INDISCRIMINATE listing of all instances self-replicating machines appeared in a work of fiction (WP:NOTTVTROPES). If we were to approach it as an article, it falls WP:GNG, WP:IPC, mostly WP:V and WP:OR). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Popular culture, Science,  and Lists. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  08:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - Yup, totally indiscriminate. Wikipedia is not TVTropes.org. FOARP (talk) 10:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Whole article is trivial just like many other recently nominated articles of the same kind. GenuineArt (talk) 11:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, but weed out uncited material — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 13:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @GhostInTheMachine Meeting WP:V alone is not sufficient to warrant keeping an article. The article also has to be within project's scope. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - No meaningful discussion on the topic or any sources that discuss it as a group or set, simply a list of non-notable trivia. Rorshacma (talk) 14:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - Seems to be WP:INDISCRIMINATE. In a BEFORE-type search, I found no evidence that the list topic is considered notable per WP:LISTN. I disregard WP:NOTTVTROPES and WP:IPC for the purpose of the AfD discussion, as they are essays, not policies. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename. There are no self-replicating machines not in fiction, therefore all self replicating machines are fiction, even VonNeumann's original thought experiment, and so all RS coverage of the concept applies to this article. Jclemens (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment If that's the case, than this article would be redundant, as we already have a full article on Self-replicating machines. Rorshacma (talk) 17:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Jclemens Seconding above, and out of curiosity, rename how? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it possibly is redundant and could reasonably be merged, but the fact that I'm the first person to point this out speaks poorly to the participation to date. i.e., if I'm the first one to point this out, no one previously opining has been paying sufficient attention. Jclemens (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Jclemens And pray tell what would you want to merge? Which part of the article do you consider worth saving? Please, do quote it. After all, if there is mergeable material, maybe this can be saved and does not need to be deleted at all? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  15:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Everything. Since the topic is notable, anything that can be sourced to a primary source meets V and should be included. I get that you don't like that, and want to shift the burden of work to me, but there's no particular reason I should be forced to implement a merge. I wouldn't object to rewriting into prose, but again, that's work I don't have time to do. As far as your prejudices? See WP:BELONG. Jclemens (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Tit for tat, all you are saying is WP:ITSNOTABLE. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment, this page was originally split off from self-replicating machine in 2017. SailingInABathTub (talk) 00:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Per WP:TNT as an example farm with no encyclopedic value. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, indisriminate information, a good chunk is unsourced, possible original research. Merko (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, passes WP:GNG due to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. There is a whole book on self-replicating machines in fiction, and discussion in other reliable secondary sources.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * This is definitely a topic that could have a prose article, but it would need 100% rewriting to reach that point, so there is no harm in deleting the current version. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I kind of disagree on a prose article being needed here, simply because we already have a detailed, prose article on Self-replicating machines and, as already pointed out above, as the entire concept is theoretical/speculative to begin with, any coverage of the topic with those sources would be better off being used to supplement that article, not being split off into a separate article covering most of the same information. The book linked above is an excellent source for adding to the main article, not for justifying Keeping a trivia list. There is absolutely no content currently in the article that would be appropriate to merge to the main article currently (which is why this non-notable trivia was split out from that article to begin with), and any additional sources on the topic would be better served supplementing that article, not adding on to this mess. Rorshacma (talk) 06:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Apart from the other references section of the main article, it is dedicated to real-world developments in self-replicating machines, so not so theoretical. It is useful to have a clear distinction between scientific developments and the significant body of notable but imagined concepts in this area. SailingInABathTub (talk) 08:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I do agree there's a difference between scientific concepts and in fiction treatment, and I would not be opposed to seeing this rewritten and kept as a stand-alone article. The problem is that nothing in the current list of trivia seems worth saving (per WP:TNT, WP:IPC, WP:LISTN, etc.). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well let’s look at all three:
 * WP:TNT - well WP:TNTTNT, yes the article would be better written in prose but it is far from useless. No fundamental issue with the content, that cannot be resolved by the normal editing process has been presented (such as copyright, advocacy, sockpuppetry etc).
 * WP:IPC - or more reliably MOS:POPCULT clearly states that “prose is usually preferable to a list format” but does not say that a list format is unacceptable.
 * WP:LISTN - Although it’s irrelevant as it passes WP:GNG, some of the reliable sources above discuss the fictional works featuring self-replicating machines as a group or a set. SailingInABathTub (talk) 00:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The list format is a minor issue. Please focus on the first part of POPCULT: "Cultural references about a subject should not be included simply because they exist. Rather, all such references should be discussed in at least one reliable secondary or tertiary source which specifically links the cultural item to the subject of the article. This source should cover the subject of the article in some depth; it should not be a source that merely mentions the subject's appearance in a movie, song, television show, or other cultural item." Since this is not show, GNG is very much not met. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That is a content issue that can be resolved through the normal editing process per WP:ATD. WP:GNG applies to the topic, not the content. SailingInABathTub (talk) 09:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hard to do so when 100% of the article is trivia. TNT applies. If you disagree, please quote a passage from the article that you think is salvageable. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete: as one of the keep !votes noted above, self-replicating machines is a notable topic. The main article has been written and referenced in a way that meets our guidelines, but this fork has not, mainly due to a lack of sources. At best, it's a WP:CONTENTFORK with no sources that verify WP:NOTABILITY of this subtopic, separate from the main topic. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. We have the main article for this already. This is a trivial list that does not meet standalone criteria. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * On the fence between [Merge selectively back to self-replicating machine, where this content was spun out from] and [Weak keep]. There are enough sources that exist to justify WP:LISTN. Having too much extra content isn't a good reason for deletion -- it's a good reason for removing the extra content. The list certainly lacks good inclusion criteria, but a start would be to require every addition to cite a source independent of the work itself. Additional prose would be good, too. But as I look at the main article, I'm surprised by how little it covers "in fiction". In this case, "in fiction" isn't equivalent to some trivia section but a major aspect of the subject. I'm leaning towards the selective merge, with the idea that if sourced content grows too big in the main article, it can be spun out again -- but we need to first demonstrate that the good content is too much. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 15:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * What specific content in Self-replicating machines in fiction that is not present in the history of Self-replicating machine do you think is suitable to merge? 18 of 19 refs and most of the text were there before the split.
 * The "Galactic Scourge: A Plug-in for Escape Velocity" source was the only ref added since the split, but it links to a Geocities site, which is not a reliable source. Its  implies that it was copied from elsewhere.
 * This is the version of Self-replicating machine before the split. The In fiction section was removed around a month before the split.
 * The split was a direct copy/paste: the cross-page diff is clean.
 * For reference, this is the diff from the split to nomination, but it is complicated by sections being reordered.
 * Flatscan (talk) 04:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per SailinginaBathtub. Meets WP:GNG. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as the sources from SailinginaBathtub pertain to a different article "self-replicating machines", an existing and separate topic that SailinginaBathtub acknowledges. There is no WP:SIGCOV about this as a separate topic. It's otherwise a WP:CONTENTFORK of a better written article, possibly to circumvent Wikipedia policies. Jontesta (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per SailinginaBathtub. Passes WP:SIGCOV. Additionally, it's a valid WP:CONTENTFORK of self-replicating machines which would be too large if we were to merge. I am not seeing a strong policy based argument for deletion which is completely ignoring the available RS on this topic. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. 4meter4 (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2022 (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.