443:- This article shows a cultural emergence of 'quantum fiction' and documents and reflects the genre and its usage as a cultural evolution over more than a decade. Usage, interest and the cultural expansion of the subject 'quantum fiction' as a genre is evidenced by citations that include: major newspapers, academic institutions, various authors, art critics, and multiple publishers. Verifiable sources include Publishers Weekly, The St. Petersburg Times, The Alexandria Gazette, Panorama Magazine (Mondadori), Rodopi Publishers (Amsterdam - New York), NBC Television series, Scholarly Book Services, Avon Books, Cosmos Books, various University publications, as well as published books, both fiction and academic. Additional citations of the term's usage include numerous authors (Ranse Parker, Wilson Harris, Audrey Niffenegger, Charles Platt, Vanna Bonta, Laurie Brenner, Jean-Philippe Toussaint among others) citing their published books as quantum fiction, and critics and reviewers have described a new NBC network television series with the term, calling the genre 'quantum fiction.' Citations list book reviews that describe books and televisions as a 'quantum fiction' genre. A doctoral thesis was presented by a PhD on quantum fiction as a new genre and how it affects the marketplace. Several university dissertations on the term quantum fiction from various sectors, independently exploring an emerging genre; college courses. Numerous citations in this subject reflect the coining of the term and over a decade of cultural, professional and academic development. Tracking the usage of the term shows the development of usage and a genre that happened without the persons involved necessarily knowing or mentioning one another because a cohesive view of the emergence of the genre was not yet visible. This is an interesting social study in and of itself -- how various authors and academics within years and time-frames of one another, used the term and explored the genre as pioneers. Citations are provided evidencing the chronology of the emergence and cultural usage of the subject and genre 'quantum fiction' over more than a decade, a global occurrence, and the term appears globally in newspaper, books and other media (usage in US, Spain, Guyana, Caribbean, Italy etc). Since knowledge is the point of Knowledge (XXG), this is a valuable resource.
1023:. That article seriously needs some attention by non-vested interests and experts. I added a lead and some substantial info to the article. I was astonished at how biased to science fiction and lacking the article is and how many unsubstantiated, unsourced "genres" are listed in the scope of this User's Wiki Science Fiction project, as well as non-notable persons. The problem may be lack of understanding and non-professionalism or experience outside of a community at the root of this. Hope to contribute more in the future. There's no need for anything else here but an inspection of the subject, the article, the resources, and the citations, and NPOV.
634:) Thus, the term Quantum Fiction could be understood to mean any fiction which presents the world through the unique share of the perceptive apparatus allotted to the individual narrator. This idea, however, is never fully presented in the article itself. Likewise, the article presents a litany of different physicists who typify the type of thought embodied in Quantum Fiction, but fails to make any mention of Max Planck, the physicist who introduced the term quantum into the lexicon of the physical sciences (in 1900.)
418:) and the references not about the topic, and there's not much left. There's the novel by Vanna Bonta, and the use of the term by Charles Platt and a few others, but that's all. Furthermore, those things are not related, since Platt and the others write after Bonta, but never mention her novel. I can only conclude that the term is being used with different meanings, and therefore that
52:. Even after discounting the few SPA votes, there is still no strong agreement on whether this is a notable neologism, although the "keep" side of the argument seems to have ever so slightly stronger arguments. Would recommend taking some time to clean up the article, get rid of bad references, clarify the definition, and then take another look at what it has become.
885:- It's definitely an emerging genre and well written (most of it). Doesn't fit deletion criteria at all, not exclusively promotional at all. Its definitely informative and useful for other readers. Articles of this kind are very helpful to new authors, who very much rely on web. I came across this while I was browsing for information on a similar genre.
1110:- the involvement of s.p.a. and new accounts in this matter is symptomatic of POV pushers and fringe enthusiasts; but then, you probably figured that out already. The idea that this is all a conspiracy by myself and other people actually familiar with publishing and fiction genres will be evaluated by you for what it's worth; I plan to ignore the
623:
establish, the references in the article itself definitely indicate the existences of a body of critique recognizing the term as appropriate for describing the character particular works. For this reason alone, an article should exist; Knowledge (XXG) lists over 45 different genres in its section on christian writing alone (
637:
I would edit the article to remove length, to better summarize the unpredictable nature of the term & its application, and to provide proper recognition of Max Planck as the grandfather of quantum theory. Also, I would remove any occurrences of WP:SYNTH that came about from the original authorâs
618:
The
Quantum Fiction article provides an overview of the use of the term âQuantum Fictionâ as a developing classification for new works that explore unique narrative relationships with the reader as an observer. As written, the article attempts to prove that Quantum Fiction is a distinct genre. While
339:
If we delete every article that used blogs as references there wouldn't be much left. I just tend to browse the refs to make sure that are more reliable, and see if the ref includes the data - a quick re-look gives velocityebooks.com, www.publishersweekly.com, www.changingplanes.net and plenty of
1014:
article and posted patently false silly nonsense like this back in 2007 -- and was recorded in other forums encouraging others to dislike, harass and vote delete. Is this NPOV? With a group of identified friends (some with COI in genre publishing circles) who have become notorious for trying to
622:
According to the List of
Literary Genres page, âLiterary genres are determined by literary technique, tone, content and by critic definitions of the genres.â While the specific technique, tone and content aspects of Quantum Fiction as presented by the article are nebulous and therefore hard to
1009:
page - the admin who deleted
Quantum fiction 5 years ago? but who has been retired 4 years. Back then, 5 years ago, (2007) Coredesat deleted an article on this subject, bypassing a Keep consensus, while this current AfD nominator Orange Mike was simultaneously calling for deletion of a
313:- take a closer look at those "references", Ron: many of them never mention the phrase; some are blogs; and at least one of them is either a copyright violation of the recreated article, or the recreated article is a copyright violation of the blog post! This thing reeks of
1091:. Compare what it looked like before my contribution). Very important distinction: just because one person is not clear on the definition or does not understand the article does not equal that it and all the secondary verifiable sources do not exist.
619:
this proposition is well supported by decent sourcing indicating that the term has been used in a variety of different places to mean a number of different things, nothing is presented which distinctly codifies
Quantum Fiction as a distinct school.
707:
is another example of this, predating the work pretending to the invention. Several of Egan's works probably would fall into this category (I'm not going to call it a genre.) Still keep, but weakest possible. Article needs lots of work.
289:. Comparing the two shows that the result of the first AfD cannot apply to the current version which has been considerably enhanced. This article now has 51 references, and I would say that there is more than enough material to keep.
834:
as a non-notable neologism unsupported by sufficient reliable sources. The closing moderator should please note that a number of the 'keep' !votes are from new or nearly-single-purpose accounts, including a now-blocked editpr. -
183:
962:
I'm pointing out that "emerging" can be a euphemism for "I think it's gonna be notable someday". As to
Strehle: I've never heard of her or her purported publisher, and rather doubt that either can be considered a
84:
281:- I saw the recreated article and undeleted the history so that editors can compare the current version to the version that was the discussion of the last AfD, and in fact the old version was
256:
393:
What's new here is the name, and the author's presumption that she's invented a new superset that includes science fiction. This (quantum effects in reality) is an old idea (cf.
234:
138:
1087:, who actually voted Keep, brought up an interesting point where a distinction was necessary. I also demonstrated a grasp of Literature and genres (see my contributions to
177:
79:
630:
The ambiguity surrounding the meaning of the term is, perhaps, not a bad thing. The root definition of the word quantum, from the 1610s, is âoneâs share or portion.â (
143:
857:
lets the closing admin make his own decisions based on the arguments put forward and not on the users - this is supposed to be a discussion on the article, even a
734:
s central premise is far from any mainstream view of quantum mechanics is excusable; every science fiction novel is entitled to one outrageous hypothesis."
1019:, including delusion he "knows" his target. It's perplexing and seems out of place. Now -- to get back to the topic here: I just took a look at Wiki's
214:
Recreation of a deleted article as a vanity sop to a notorious spammer. Still a neologism without any substantial presence outside her spamming.
673:
654:
813:
730:
would not agree; category is "hard science fiction" (premise is built on a physical device in people's brains). In fact Egan writes: "That
427:
506:
111:
106:
911:
781:
677:
1005:). New ideas are revolutionary but the reaction of silly nonsense accusation and hostility seem extreme. This user posted this AfD on
777:
756:
115:
17:
1126:
1100:
1073:
1032:
979:
957:
939:
894:
873:
844:
817:
764:
743:
717:
694:
658:
605:
589:
557:
528:
514:
495:
452:
435:
406:
377:
352:
334:
301:
270:
248:
226:
63:
997:- Closing admin: I have been trying to find explanations why this AfD starts with a personal attack by User Orange Mike on author
98:
755:- The article is obviously relevant, there are numerous sources and it is being updated constantly. We should really keep this.
631:
1068:
490:
198:
394:
165:
907:
473:
704:
362:
286:
1145:
40:
797:
In my opinion, this article is obviously relelvant, there are several links, the page has a wealth of information.
519:
Clearly all the usage, papers, books and discussion by sources are about 'quantum fiction' as a new literary genre.
669:
650:
601:
550:
159:
282:
809:
924:
431:
340:
others to more than satisfy WP guidelines for inclusion. Some may be small sites, but they are not all blogs.
944:
Do you seriously think that's what Susan
Strehle means when she talks about the 'emerging genre' in her book
510:
1088:
1020:
155:
801:
642:
773:
760:
665:
646:
597:
805:
1141:
726:
Reply to
Comment: Regarding title you suggest predates the one listed, verification shows the author of
36:
769:
205:
397:; I'm not at all sure that was the first science fiction work to riff on this idea using this method.)
1121:
974:
934:
713:
543:
402:
329:
221:
102:
58:
1064:
486:
191:
567:
840:
1047:
861:
can make a comment, it's up to the closing admin to how much weight (s)he gives those comments.
502:
423:
1096:
1028:
953:
903:
890:
739:
690:
524:
469:
448:
266:
244:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1140:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
632:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=quantum&searchmode=none
361:
is now, sadly, deceased. Should this AfD result be keep, then I suggest a history merge with
171:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1043:
858:
477:
1115:
1084:
1055:
1002:
968:
928:
709:
398:
323:
215:
94:
69:
53:
964:
415:
314:
1060:
1006:
863:
580:
482:
367:
365:
to keep all the attributions together. I can do that if the community is in agreement.
342:
291:
1083:- Don't speak on my behalf. I demonstrated a very clear grasp of the definition. And
1016:
854:
836:
1092:
1051:
1024:
949:
899:
886:
735:
686:
520:
465:
444:
358:
262:
240:
542:- The topic is clearly notable and this article itself is wonderfully researched.
132:
1011:
998:
624:
501:
The assertion that these unrelated uses of the term form a "genre" is classic
570:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
1058:
demonstrated above) the fact that it doesn't have a clear definition.
1114:
elements in favor of discussing the topic on its lack of merits. --
1134:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
853:
And some keep votes are from Admins. I would suggest that
476:) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this
128:
124:
120:
190:
85:
Articles for deletion/Quantum fiction (2nd nomination)
257:
list of
Science fiction-related deletion discussions
823:
User has since been blocked for disruptive editing.
577:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
204:
625:http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Christian_genres
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1148:). No further edits should be made to this page.
685:Reply: Good contribution on Planck and clarity.
1001:(one of the first to publish and lecture about
638:attempt to prove the immutability of the term.
235:list of Literature-related deletion discussions
414:. Take out the blog references (which are not
322:plus "referencing" by Google results dump. --
8:
255:Note: This debate has been included in the
233:Note: This debate has been included in the
254:
232:
967:, although of course I could be wrong. --
77:
80:Articles for deletion/Quantum fiction
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
76:
24:
1015:discredit, it fits a pattern of
948:? Or are you just being silly?
946:Fiction in the Quantum Universe
320:original research and synthesis
395:The Coming of the Quantum Cats
1:
612:Keep, with considerable edits
422:and that the article is pure
705:Quarantine (Greg Egan novel)
363:User:Tlogmer/Quantum_fiction
287:User:Tlogmer/Quantum_fiction
1165:
1127:13:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
1101:02:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
1074:01:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
1033:06:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
980:13:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
958:10:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
940:02:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
927:, the next big thing! --
895:14:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
874:00:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
845:07:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
818:12:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
765:12:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
744:15:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
718:03:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
695:15:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
659:16:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
606:16:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
590:06:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
558:02:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
529:20:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
515:11:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
496:01:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
453:20:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
436:12:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
378:00:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
353:00:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
64:17:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
1137:Please do not modify it.
407:19:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
335:23:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
302:17:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
271:18:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
249:18:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
227:02:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
1089:list of literary genres
1021:list of literary genres
420:there is no topic here
75:AfDs for this article:
1108:note to closing admin
912:few or no other edits
782:few or no other edits
678:few or no other edits
462:Note to closing admin
1050:, made worse by (as
914:outside this topic.
784:outside this topic.
680:outside this topic.
48:The result was
915:
824:
821:
804:comment added by
785:
681:
662:
645:comment added by
592:
588:
498:
273:
260:
251:
238:
1156:
1139:
1124:
1118:
1072:
977:
971:
937:
931:
897:
870:
868:
822:
820:
798:
767:
663:
661:
639:
587:
585:
578:
576:
572:
555:
548:
494:
459:
374:
372:
349:
347:
332:
326:
298:
296:
261:
239:
224:
218:
209:
208:
194:
146:
136:
118:
61:
56:
34:
1164:
1163:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1146:deletion review
1135:
1122:
1116:
1059:
1003:quantum fiction
975:
969:
965:reliable source
935:
929:
866:
864:
799:
666:Owen_a_ferguson
647:Owen_a_ferguson
640:
581:
579:
565:
551:
544:
481:
370:
368:
345:
343:
330:
324:
294:
292:
222:
216:
151:
142:
109:
95:Quantum fiction
93:
90:
73:
70:Quantum fiction
59:
54:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1162:
1160:
1151:
1150:
1130:
1129:
1104:
1103:
1077:
1076:
1036:
1035:
1007:User:Coredesat
991:
990:
989:
988:
987:
986:
985:
984:
983:
982:
925:WP:UPANDCOMING
879:
878:
877:
876:
848:
847:
828:
827:
826:
825:
806:Ultimatedriver
787:
786:
749:
748:
747:
746:
721:
720:
698:
697:
616:
615:
595:
594:
593:
574:
573:
562:
561:
560:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
456:
455:
438:
428:202.124.73.133
409:
387:
386:
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
380:
305:
304:
275:
274:
252:
212:
211:
148:
89:
88:
87:
82:
74:
72:
67:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1161:
1149:
1147:
1143:
1138:
1132:
1131:
1128:
1125:
1119:
1113:
1109:
1106:
1105:
1102:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1079:
1078:
1075:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1057:
1053:
1049:
1045:
1041:
1040:Strong delete
1038:
1037:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1017:cyberstalking
1013:
1008:
1004:
1000:
996:
993:
992:
981:
978:
972:
966:
961:
960:
959:
955:
951:
947:
943:
942:
941:
938:
932:
926:
922:
919:
918:
917:
916:
913:
909:
905:
901:
896:
892:
888:
884:
881:
880:
875:
872:
871:
860:
856:
852:
851:
850:
849:
846:
842:
838:
833:
830:
829:
819:
815:
811:
807:
803:
796:
795:
791:
790:
789:
788:
783:
779:
775:
771:
766:
762:
758:
754:
751:
750:
745:
741:
737:
733:
729:
725:
724:
723:
722:
719:
715:
711:
706:
703:
700:
699:
696:
692:
688:
684:
683:
682:
679:
675:
671:
667:
660:
656:
652:
648:
644:
635:
633:
628:
626:
620:
613:
610:
609:
608:
607:
603:
599:
591:
586:
584:
575:
571:
569:
564:
563:
559:
556:
554:
549:
547:
541:
538:
537:
530:
526:
522:
518:
517:
516:
512:
508:
507:202.124.73.13
504:
500:
499:
497:
492:
488:
484:
479:
475:
471:
467:
463:
458:
457:
454:
450:
446:
442:
439:
437:
433:
429:
425:
421:
417:
413:
412:Strong delete
410:
408:
404:
400:
396:
392:
389:
388:
379:
376:
375:
364:
360:
356:
355:
354:
351:
350:
338:
337:
336:
333:
327:
321:
319:
318:
312:
309:
308:
307:
306:
303:
300:
299:
288:
284:
280:
277:
276:
272:
268:
264:
258:
253:
250:
246:
242:
236:
231:
230:
229:
228:
225:
219:
207:
203:
200:
197:
193:
189:
185:
182:
179:
176:
173:
170:
167:
164:
161:
157:
154:
153:Find sources:
149:
145:
140:
134:
130:
126:
122:
117:
113:
108:
104:
100:
96:
92:
91:
86:
83:
81:
78:
71:
68:
66:
65:
62:
57:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1136:
1133:
1111:
1107:
1080:
1042:- It's both
1039:
994:
945:
923:Ah-ha! It's
920:
883:Strong Keep
882:
862:
831:
800:â Preceding
793:
792:
770:86.40.108.14
757:86.40.108.14
752:
731:
727:
701:
641:â Preceding
636:
629:
621:
617:
611:
596:
582:
566:
552:
545:
539:
461:
440:
419:
411:
390:
366:
359:User:Tlogmer
357:I note that
341:
316:
315:
310:
290:
278:
213:
201:
195:
187:
180:
174:
168:
162:
152:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
1117:Orange Mike
1012:Vanna Bonta
999:Vanna Bonta
970:Orange Mike
930:Orange Mike
910:) has made
780:) has made
753:Strong Keep
732:Quarantine'
676:) has made
441:Strong Keep
325:Orange Mike
279:Strong Keep
217:Orange Mike
178:free images
60:| comment _
55:-Scottywong
1112:ad hominem
728:Quarantine
583:Sandstein
1142:talk page
391:Weak Keep
263:⢠Gene93k
241:⢠Gene93k
37:talk page
1144:or in a
1069:Contribs
1048:WP:SYNTH
908:contribs
855:Dravecky
837:Dravecky
814:contribs
802:unsigned
778:contribs
674:contribs
655:contribs
643:unsigned
568:Relisted
553:Qwertyus
503:WP:SYNTH
491:Contribs
474:contribs
424:WP:SYNTH
283:userfied
139:View log
39:or in a
1093:IMC.esq
1052:IMC.esq
1025:IMC.esq
995:Comment
950:IMC.esq
900:Pilot03
887:Pilot03
736:IMC.esq
702:Comment
687:IMC.esq
521:IMC.esq
466:IMC.esq
445:IMC.esq
184:WPÂ refs
172:scholar
112:protect
107:history
1044:WP:NEO
869:jones
859:WP:SPA
832:Delete
546:Marcus
373:jones
348:jones
297:jones
156:Google
116:delete
1081:Reply
921:reply
505:. --
426:. --
416:WP:RS
311:reply
199:JSTOR
160:books
144:Stats
133:views
125:watch
121:links
16:<
1123:Talk
1097:talk
1085:htom
1065:Talk
1061:Dori
1056:htom
1054:and
1046:and
1029:talk
976:Talk
954:talk
936:Talk
904:talk
891:talk
841:talk
810:talk
794:Keep
774:talk
761:talk
740:talk
714:talk
710:htom
691:talk
670:talk
651:talk
602:talk
598:talk
540:Keep
525:talk
511:talk
487:Talk
483:Dori
470:talk
449:talk
432:talk
403:talk
399:htom
331:Talk
267:talk
245:talk
223:Talk
192:FENS
166:news
129:logs
103:talk
99:edit
865:Ron
627:.)
478:AfD
369:Ron
344:Ron
317:bad
293:Ron
285:at
206:TWL
141:â˘
137:â (
1120:|
1099:)
1067:â
1031:)
973:|
956:)
933:|
906:â˘
898:â
893:)
843:)
816:)
812:â˘
776:â˘
768:â
763:)
742:)
716:)
693:)
672:â˘
664:â
657:)
653:â˘
604:)
527:)
513:)
489:â
480:.
472:â˘
464::
460:â
451:)
434:)
405:)
328:|
269:)
259:.
247:)
237:.
220:|
186:)
131:|
127:|
123:|
119:|
114:|
110:|
105:|
101:|
1095:(
1071:â˝
1063:âž
1027:(
952:(
902:(
889:(
867:h
839:(
808:(
772:(
759:(
738:(
712:(
689:(
668:(
649:(
614:.
600:(
523:(
509:(
493:â˝
485:âž
468:(
447:(
430:(
401:(
371:h
346:h
295:h
265:(
243:(
210:)
202:¡
196:¡
188:¡
181:¡
175:¡
169:¡
163:¡
158:(
150:(
147:)
135:)
97:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.