Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matrioshka brain
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Matrioshka brain[edit]
- Matrioshka brain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A nonnotable neologism by a nonnotable person (under afd now). Wikipedia is not a vehicle of promotion of new ideas.- Altenmann >t 14:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable term and concept. Suggest merging with Jupiter brain to avoid duplication of material. Viriditas (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And how it is exactly proved it is notable besides the author claims? The only book refs are author's chapters/sections. - Altenmann >t 14:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Try to do a bit of research before coming to AfD: "Bradbury is known for his design of matrioshka brains..."[1][2] Viriditas (talk) 14:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fisrt ref is a review of a book (by an unknown person) which contains Bradbury writing about the concept: - a circular logic. Second ref- I didnt find the term. A brief google seacrh without analysis may be misleading. I did google too before nominating. - Altenmann >t 14:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The first ref is a review of a collection of essays (including "Under Construction: Redesigning the Solar System" by Bradbury) published in the book Year Million[3], edited by Damien Broderick. The review is from the peer-reviewed journal Futures, which establishes the notablity of the concept and the author. The book (and concept) was also reviewed in the Los Angeles Times [4] and the Wall Street Journal[5], Publisher's Weekly, and many other places. Note, the term "Matrioshka brain" is also discussed by other notable authors in that essay collection and is discussed in many sources, such as the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society[6], The Singularity Is Near (2005)[7] and others, such as in the coursework for an astronomy class at the University of Virginia.[8] The second ref is another reference to the term in the journal The Philosophical Quarterly. The concept was first presented at several conferences[9] and is related to the idea of the Jupiter Brain, which itself was published in the Journal of Evolution and Technology in December 1999.[10] Viriditas (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fisrt ref is a review of a book (by an unknown person) which contains Bradbury writing about the concept: - a circular logic. Second ref- I didnt find the term. A brief google seacrh without analysis may be misleading. I did google too before nominating. - Altenmann >t 14:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Try to do a bit of research before coming to AfD: "Bradbury is known for his design of matrioshka brains..."[1][2] Viriditas (talk) 14:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And how it is exactly proved it is notable besides the author claims? The only book refs are author's chapters/sections. - Altenmann >t 14:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This science fiction concept is sufficiently notable to deserve a Wikipedia article -- I was already familiar with the term from Stross's Hugo-award winning novel Accelerando. Looie496 (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I added the refs identified above to the article. They show notability. Needs work though - probably should have less detail on the concept (or better independent sources), more on independent commentary. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Aymatth2 already added the Kurzweil, which by itself is significant enough coverage for a weak keep. The other sources found during this discussion convince me that the GNG is satisfied. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable concept in SF, like Looie496 I know it from Accelerando (and I think it occurs, although perhaps not under that name) in other novels, too. A merge with Jupiter brain is definitely needed. --Crusio (talk) 10:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've heard the concept, and I think the exact term, in a lecture by Freeman Dyson, as well as in the aforementioned books. Gruntler (talk) 07:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, now that it has sufficient references to establish notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher Thomas (talk • contribs)
- 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.