Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Positronic brain

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. Pretty clear consensus that the article material should not be deleted. Whether or not to merge and/or redirect to Robot series (Asimov) can be settled by discussion outside AfD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Positronic brain

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced, entirely original research, and an example farm that fails WP:GNG. Most of the article that isn't popular culture examples is just restating what is already in Three Laws of Robotics. Simply a technobabble buzzword - I mean flux capacitor doesn't even have its own article. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Robot series (Asimov). Not notable independent of Asimov's works. FOARP (talk) 12:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Robot series (Asimov). The only real in-depth, non-plot summary sources on the concept that I am finding all appear to be in relation to Asimov's work, but even then it does not appear to have the coverage needed to split it off into its own article. I think that the Robot Series article could certainly stand to be expanded with some more information on the topic, but as the information here is largely unsourced, merging of this particular article would not be advised. Rorshacma (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Robot series (Asimov), where it is mentioned. With 100-200 page views a day, this is a proven plausible search term and the existence of the concept of a positronic brain in Asimov's fiction is not in doubt. Per our policy WP:ATD, "fails WP:GNG" is not an valid argument for deletion, only for rejecting a standalone article. Hence, redirect. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 01:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per everyone else (and the First Law of Editing: "An editor may not injure Wikipedia or, through inaction, allow Wikipedia to come to harm"). I've already redirected Positronic there instead of to Positron. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen "positronic" used in the context of scientific literature when I googled the term. It doesn't seem like an obvious redirect to the Robot series._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll concede it is used occasionally in physics, but IMO the primary usage is in Asimov's writings, so the options are a dab page (since there's also Positronic (company)) or expanding the hatnote in Robot series (Asimov). Clarityfiend (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The phrase "positronic brain" is common in various science fiction works, not just Asimov's but also Star Trek the Next Generation and others, and people may very likely come to Wikipedia to learn whether a "positronic brain" is a real scientific concept, made up technobabble, or what, and would be interested to learn that this phrase actually has a history with Asimov, and why he used the word "Positronic" in the first place (because the positron had only recently been discovered). This this it would be a big mistake to remove this article, and also a mistake to redirect it to Asimov's "Robot series", as, as I said, this phrase has come to be used in various science fiction works having nothing to do with Asimov's. Perhaps this article should be trimmed down to avoid repeating things said elsewhere. I can also become a redirect to a section inside a bigger "science fiction technology", if we had one. But I think it should not be deleted. Nyh (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a WP:ITSIMPORTANT argument. No evidence was brought forth that it is actually notable, besides claims that it is._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. The term has been discussed in many works of literary analysis, including:

An Asimov Companion: Characters, Places and Terms in the Robot/Empire/Foundation Metaseries by Donald E. Palumbo, McFarland (2016)
Science Fiction and Futurism: Their Terms and Ideas by Ace G. Pilkington, McFarland (2017)
Chaos Theory, Asimov's Foundations and Robots, and Herbert's Dune: The Fractal Aesthetic of Epic Science Fiction by Donald Palumbo, Greenwood Press (2002)
Isaac Asimov by William F. Touponce, Twayne Publishers (1991)
"My Robots", essay by Isaac Asimov first published by Ace Books as an introduction to "Isaac Asimov's Robot City" (1987)
The unauthorized Trekkers' guide to The next generation and Deep Space Nine by James Van Hise, HarperPrism (1995)
Brave New Words : The Oxford Dictionary of Science Fiction by Jeff Brucher, Oxford University Press (2007)

I don't have access to more biographies or literary criticism texts about Asimov, but I would expect that as a major concept in his most popular early fiction, there are more discussions of the concept. I'll add these to the article under a "Further reading" section, so that people who are concerned about the state of the article will have some resources to improve it. -- Toughpigs (talk) 23:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still do not believe it would be WP:UNDUE to put all this information in Robot series (Asimov) under a section. The notability of this in-universe element is largely tied to usage in his books, primarily that series._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Toughpigs, Sadads (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - The current article is quite poor, so it would be much more beneficial to explore this in a parent topic and then decide to split it out later if there are size concerns. I'd say with the exception of the three laws, you could likely merge most of these topics into one overarching analysis of robotics and cybernetics in his works. TTN (talk) 12:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think a lot more people associate positronic brains with Star Trek than with Asimov. -- Dorama285 18:30, 05 February 2020 (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.