Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spy-fi

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. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 00:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spy-fi[edit]

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

Fails notability. Article presents "spy-fi" as a genre or sub-genre, describing it as a cross of the espionage and science-fiction genres. The article is poorly sourced and I believe is synthesizing its definition. I do not believe it is a recognized genre, not do a believe it is a notable descriptor of a group of films. According to Brittany (2014) the term "spy-fi" was coined by Danny Biederman for his book The Incredible World of Spy-fi: Wild and Crazy Spy Gadgets, Props, and Artifacts from TV and the Movies. The book is largely a look at the gadgets and props used in the film, and is not an analysis of genre. Beyond this book the article is sourced to sub-standard sources and most of the films are unsourced. I cannot find any authoritative film analysis that regards "spy-fi" as a genre. Betty Logan (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A lot of the sources I added are right out of google scholar not to mention books discussing this topic.--Taeyebaar (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see how establishing that Biederman coined the term amounts to a rationale to delete. What it does amount to is an encyclopaedic fact that should be added to the article. Nor do I understand the requirement for an "authoritative" (meaning scholarly?) analysis. Surely it is enough for a popular culture article that the concept is discussed in popular culture sources—which it surely is. The article may need cleanup, but not so badly that it warrants deletion. SpinningSpark 23:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Biederman is actually writing on the subject of his collection of gadgets from spy films, not discussing a genre of fiction. The article does not present any authoritative definition of the concept, and Biederman who is credited with coining the phrase seems to engage more with the technology than the actual films. Betty Logan (talk) 00:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Packer, Secret Agents: Popular Icons Beyond James Bond repeatedly and explicitly refers to spy-fi as a genre. Maeda, Book Publishing 101: Inside Information to Getting Your First Book or Novel Published defines spy-fi as "espionage stories with science fiction elements..." [1], pretty much the definition given in out article, and on another page [2] explicitly lists spy-fi as a sub-genre of science fiction/fantasy. SpinningSpark 14:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Betty Logan: even though they're straight out of google scholar?--Taeyebaar (talk) 00:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute the existence of the term, I dispute how you applying the sources. For example, Google scholar throws up this source: William Hood, Spy Fiction Through Knowledgeable Eyes. This is what he has to say about "spy-fi": "In the year-round torrent of fiction dealing with espionage and other intelli- gence activity — some publishers now categorize these books as Spy-fi, a term that will not appear here again — there are a few novels of more than passing interest." This writer does not even associate it with science-fiction; to him and many publishers "spy-fi" is just an abbreviation of "spy fiction" (albeit it in 1989). I don't think the concept as the article describes it is credible enough for an article. It is basically just a buzz phrase for what is more widely known as a techno thriller. Betty Logan (talk) 01:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support deleting. As the nominator points out, this is not a recognized genre. Google scholar is not a RS. The book mentioned is on gadgets, not genre. Note that Taeyebaar has a years-long history of changing genres and adding new categories then edit warring with the multiple editors who disagreed with him. He has been told many times to get consensus for his genre changes, but his response is that since he is right, he is not edit warring. His Talk page history shows dozens and dozens of warnings that he has removed. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gothicfilm is describing his/her own edit wars with multiple editors [3] but in any case I'm confident this article will be kept. PS if Google scholar is not a reliable source I don't see why the template includes it. Wikipedia is clearly recognizes it as a reliable source. That's all that counts, not because you don't like it.--Taeyebaar (talk) 01:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No: Google Scholar is not a relaible source. It is a search engine. It provides results which need to be assessed to see if they are suitable for inclusion. – SchroCat (talk) 12:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, yes, this is a good one. I've edited it to reflect the emphasis on gadgets and other sci-fi hardware, while keeping the framework and best of existing writing. It could shape up to be a very good page. Removed the image, which didn't seem to have much to do with the page concept, but other images should show up in time to do the page and concept justice. Nice framework to work with. (edit: Just checked and the page is from 2005, an oldie waiting to be a goodie) Randy Kryn 1:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Betty Logan you might be right about one source, but it still doesn't invalidate the other sources. --Taeyebaar (talk) 01:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seem notable enough. The Mad Hatter (talk)

DELETE I can't believe this is even a discssion. Most spy fiction contains "gadgets" of some sort or other (miniature cameras being an obvius example). Many of the refs in the article are dubious (Tor.com is less reliable than IMDB (it's crowd-sourced) and MI6HQ is a fan site). The rest of the references are so badly formatted it's difficult to make a proper judgement on whether they are good sources, or if they carry the purported information, and if so where. The first search I did – in James Bond in World and Popular Culture: The Films are Not Enough through Google Books - shows two mentions of the term – as a band name, not as a film genre. On the questionable use of that source I'm dubious on the others until more details can be provided. – SchroCat (talk) 12:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename? Upon reading some of the other discussions on this it does seem that the common use of Spy-fi just means a fiction film or book in the spy genre, not a mix of spy and science fiction. The page should probably still be kept but renamed, or is there already a page for gadgets and future-tech in spy films and books? If not this page, renamed, could create the framework for the topic. Randy Kryn 12:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since spy fiction already exists, that would be an argument to redirect if we accept that the terms are synonymous. However, not all sources are using the terms synonymously. At least some are making a distinction, for instance [4] and [5] would have it as a distinct genre. In any event, whatever we title the article, there are certainly sources that discuss this kind of fiction as a distinct group, so it is right that we have an article on it, whatever we think of the validity of that classification. SpinningSpark 14:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~>tfw someone criticized crowdsourced information on Wikipedia.~~ In all seriousness though, I'd really prefer to see proper inline citations created before assessing whether or not this article has appropriate citations. I'd like to know what info on the page is coming from legit sources, and what is coming from Tor or M17HD or whatever. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 05:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An alternative would be to merge the sourced content—of which there is very little once you cull the massive list of unsourced books, games and films—into a sub-section at techno-thriller. "Spy-fi" in this context is a neologism at best. The "spy-fi" page could then be turned into a disambiguation page with links to spy fiction and to techno-thriller. Betty Logan (talk) 08:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 17:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If a genre were notable, what would we expect to see? I think common usage of the term in multiple reliable sources, such as collections of criticism or discussion of the genre as a whole. We have a book that coined the term, and a few book sources that refer to the term, and some internet lists. Is this thinking the right way to apply notability to a genre? Oh, and I will also add Wikipedia:Assume good faith here. Chris vLS (talk) 03:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this is convincing enough as a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 03:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to spy fiction just like sci-fi goes to science fiction. Andrew D. (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: User:Taeyebaar said it with "A lot of the sources I added are right out of google scholar". If this truly is a real genre (it might be), it's not notable enough to receive coverage in secondary sources. As the nom mentioned, this is a synthesis of sources and thus fails WP:OR. I see no way to salvage this article as it stands and would need a complete rewrite if sufficient secondary sources are found to support notability. Chrisw80 (talk) 04:45, 7 April 2016 (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.