- 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. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Rubber science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. Seems to be a fairly non-notable term. There are only two references to its existence, the first being an essay which is near-impossible to track down, and the other is an arbitrary article in the Los Angeles Times. No real evidence of this term being used beyond that. I am told that the term was only coined for use within this essay itself. — Richard BB 07:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I haven't looked for other sources yet, but just FYI to other commenters, here's a quote from the essay used to source the article. The article is about plausible and implausible inventions in science fiction, and after a couple of pages Spinrad says "To give an example of what I'm herein calling 'Rubber Science' as opposed to straightforward pseudoscientific doubletalk, let us consider the grandaddy of them all, FTL, hyperspace, overdrive, spaceships exceeding the speed of light." Spinrad is using "rubber science" to refer to fake scientific explanations that are done well enough to sound plausible to a reader, as opposed to "pseudoscientific doubletalk", which a reader regards as nonsense. For example, later in the essay, he says "in its highest form, the Rubber Science in science fiction can, on occasion, actually contribute to the dialectic of scientific evolutionl it can come very close, sometimes, to being the real thing". The essay clearly is a good source for the term; the question is whether the term has become notable since the essay, which seems to have been where the term was coined. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KeepMerge to science in science fiction. The concept itself seems to be notable enough, although I have never heard this expression before. I was looking for another article on the concept, either within sci-fi or more generally in fiction, to propose a merger. The closest I could find was suspension of disbelief, but that seemed to broad to merge in this little article. Until Mike Christie sugested the right place to merge. Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Delete per WP:NEO. Then a redirect to Natural rubber#Chemical makeup or something similar wouldn't be out of order. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I've taken a stab at a referenced usage section; looks like a borderline case per WP:NEO's policy of sources that discuss rather than merely using the term. Would favor a merge/redirect to the Hard science fiction#Scientific rigor subsection over deletion. --Muchness (talk) 03:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, on reflection I'm favoring inclusion for this borderline case, without prejudice to further merge/rename discussion on the article's talk page. --Muchness (talk) 04:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Got notable usages of the word in the now. Google news search has some additional results to sort through. The LA Times has an article about the subject titled Rubber Science, Real Science and Science Fiction [1]. So its a real thing, and it gets coverage. Dream Focus 13:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Either Rename to imaginary science, or (preferably) merge to science in science fiction. There are hundreds of sources covering the topic of plausibility in science fiction, which is essentially what this article is about -- the topic itself is clearly notable, but "rubber science" is not the most common name for the topic. The Nicholls/Clute Encyclopedia of SF uses "imaginary science", and that's a good source to start with. However, the whole topic is really a subtopic of "science in sf", so I think a merge is the best choice for now -- if that article gets too large (not an immediate threat) then it can be split out as "imaginary science". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable sources. Acceptable to have a phrase or idiom-specific article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per sources above and in the article. Seems a notable
idiomconcept. Disclaimer: I originally removed the PROD from the article. -- cyclopiaspeak! 12:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that WP articles are supposed to be about topics, not idioms. I'm still voting for a merge to Science in science fiction. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a bit like saying "WP articles are supposed to be about topics, not fruits". Idioms (like fruits) are a legitimate topic (pardon the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but when it is a lot of stuff, it kinda shows consensus). Concepts are even more of a legitimate encyclopedic topic. If anything, I was wrong calling it an idiom: the article is about a notable concept, with an idiomatic name. I fixed my !vote accordingly. -- cyclopiaspeak! 15:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, idioms can be covered, if there is discussion of the idiom itself, as opposed to the topic. The significant coverage I'm aware of isn't about the term "rubber science", as far as I can tell; it's about the concept of imaginary science, which is also known as rubber science. Can you say which sources you see that support the separation of "rubber science" from "science in science fiction"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The LA Times source, for example:
" "The trap is that by science fiction convention there are no indications or clues as to which science in the story is 'straight stuff' and which is 'rubber science': speculation, extrapolation, fabrication or invention. . . ."
. It refers to a specific subset of science in science fiction: something what looks like real science, but isn't. Real science and explicit science laws violations appear in sci-fi as well, so it seems to me rubber science is very clearly defined in between. -- cyclopiaspeak! 15:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Thanks for the example. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that there's more than one kind of science in science fiction -- the LA Times refers to real science and rubber science; and you're adding "explicit science laws violations". I'd agree with that, so I think where we disagree is that science in science fiction should be about both the latter two in your list. It surely has to include rubber science or it wouldn't be covering its topic. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Science in science fiction should be a generic article on how science (real, realistic or downright bizarre) is depicted in science fiction. Agree it should include this topic. A merge is not a bad idea, in this respect, but as far as it is notable per se, it can maintain its own article. It depends. While I lean towards keep, I have no incredibly strong feelings against a merge. -- cyclopiaspeak! 17:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the example. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that there's more than one kind of science in science fiction -- the LA Times refers to real science and rubber science; and you're adding "explicit science laws violations". I'd agree with that, so I think where we disagree is that science in science fiction should be about both the latter two in your list. It surely has to include rubber science or it wouldn't be covering its topic. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The LA Times source, for example:
- Yes, idioms can be covered, if there is discussion of the idiom itself, as opposed to the topic. The significant coverage I'm aware of isn't about the term "rubber science", as far as I can tell; it's about the concept of imaginary science, which is also known as rubber science. Can you say which sources you see that support the separation of "rubber science" from "science in science fiction"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a bit like saying "WP articles are supposed to be about topics, not fruits". Idioms (like fruits) are a legitimate topic (pardon the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but when it is a lot of stuff, it kinda shows consensus). Concepts are even more of a legitimate encyclopedic topic. If anything, I was wrong calling it an idiom: the article is about a notable concept, with an idiomatic name. I fixed my !vote accordingly. -- cyclopiaspeak! 15:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that WP articles are supposed to be about topics, not idioms. I'm still voting for a merge to Science in science fiction. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, seems to be valid based on the sources. Fotaun (talk) 20:46, 14 August 2013 (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.