Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great works of 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 delete.

Great works of science fiction

Great works of science fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This list doesn't delineate its inclusion criteria other than to cite the single reference from which it was originally copied. If the inclusion criterion is being listed at the citation website, this is then a copyright violation. If that is not the inclusion criterion, then this list is an opinion piece and is original research- novels that are not in the original citation have already been added and I can only see more being added in the future. I cannot think of a way to improve this list to eliminate these problems, so I'm bringing it here. —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 04:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  John Vandenberg 04:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  John Vandenberg 04:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 05:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as utter
  WP:OR. It isn't even the entirety of the source, it's a selection. I could almost see a List of science fiction firsts (although the list-deletionists wouldn't), but this is little better than one editor's opinion. --Dhartung | Talk 07:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak keep if no copyvio...quite a good list IMHO Rhinoracer 07:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree that it's a great list, I've even bookmarked the web page that's cited for my own future reference. However, just because something's
    interesting doesn't qualify it for inclusion. —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 14:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete. No clearcut criterion for inclusion. Clarityfiend 08:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Any list of "great works" is inevitably POV on its own terms. BTLizard 08:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:COPYVIO, as detailed by other users above. (although the copyright status of an unadorned list is an interesting legal question).-- Visviva 08:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I don't actually have a problem with the concept of a "Works of science fiction considered influential" but it would need to be up to date (this one is based on a ten year old source) and it would need to be a conglomeration of sources and not just this one. ---
  WRE) 15:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete This list might be useful as a reference in a section of
  John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer is a specific honor, this is just a one time list. Even the AFI 100 Years... series is at least a specific and discreet concept. FrozenPurpleCube 16:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Despite the list being based on a poll, I can't see how it could ever become anything other than a POV list. (Although I did mentally check off all the ones I had read.) FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 19:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, subjective, omits everything but the US scifi, name, unmaintainable. Pavel Vozenilek 13:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment-- Wait a minute, where's the copyvio? None of the linked outside lists are precisely like this one. I'm changing my vote from Weak Keep to Keep, on condition that the article be renamed and expanded. Remember the list of famous operas that made it to feature status? This could have that potential. Rhinoracer 14:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well sure it's different. Editors have been adding items per their own points of view, which makes it original research per the other side of my rationale. The
    List of important operas#References gives a pretty stringent entry criterion; I wouldn't object to a similar criterion being applied to this list... if enough reliable sources can be found.—Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 16:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete. OR, POV, copyright violation... triple threat! Even the article's title rubs me the wrong way. "Great"? María (habla conmigo) 12:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pure POV (as one may have assumed by the title). Carlossuarez46 21:04, 11 June 2007 (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.