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 Hard fantasy and no consensus on Category:Hard fantasy.

This term supposedly refers to "fantasy in which the world (unlike other fantasy settings) closely follows the laws of science". This term appears to be original research, and has no clear definition or difference from other genres. The Category:Hard fantasy contains many settings that are heavy with magic, such as Tolkien's and Steven Erikson's. >Radiant< 10:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem with the term hard fantasy is that it is hard to define it. There seems to be two competing definitions out there, one being the above mentiond, and the other being essentially the opposite, core fantasy with little resemblance to the real world. Most of the sources I find, unfortunately, seem to be blogs and it's doubtful if there exist enough reputable sources out there to salvage it. Weak Delete for Hard fantasy unless it can be sourced and mentions the competing definitions to avoid WP:NPOV issues. Strong Delete on the category, though, as the term has no accepted definition yet any such list or category would seem nonsensical to the reader - but isn't CfD a better place to list that? Arkyan 16:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Category isn't relevant here, however poor it may be. But this subject is quite valid see [1] for one thesis about it. No idea what it says, not searchable text, but here is another book with text [2]. Here's another [3] (corrected source added). I'll go add the last one to the page now. This article may be unreferenced now, but that doesn't make it OR. Does that satisfy everybody that this is sourceable though, even if there are differences as to meaning? (And sorry, I don't know if there are sources for that disagreement, I can only say what I found. And yes, I have noted a difference before, but I'm not sure of it being covered anywhere.) FrozenPurpleCube 16:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing problem still exists. The first source you offer must be discounted because we don't even know what that source says. The second two you have posted are the same book, and even it is a little dubious as it admits the definition is arbitrary and perhaps even a neologism. Again with proper sourcing I'm not opposed to hanging on to this one but unfortunately all that can be found thus far is blogs or indeterminate sources. Arkyan 17:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, my bad, I thought I had posted a different link. [4] was the link I meant to post. Does that change things, or is a book titled Encyclopedia of Fantasy not a perfectly good source?

It looks good to me. Drop that in there and the article does need a little cleanup but that should source it sufficiently. Changing my opinion to keep based on the addition of these references to the article, though it's still in need of cleanup. Arkyan 20:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already added it actually. And yes, I do agree it needs cleanup, and expansion, but being a stub is not a reason to delete. FrozenPurpleCube 21:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as inherently POV-ridden, fails WP:OR. Unless someone can explain to me how dragons can bypass the square-cube law, the very concept is a bit cockeyed. RGTraynor 17:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you explain the POV problem more explicitly? FrozenPurpleCube 18:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'd be happy to do so. "Closely" follows the laws of science? How closely? Are there any supernatural elements at all? If so, how are those justified? Oh, you mean they follow the laws of science because the author (or the person making the assertion) wants it to do so and has cobbled together a rationalization. And so on. From many years exposure and experience, the ability of SF&F fans to split hairs down to millimeters thick is huge, and I doubt you'd get anywhere remotely close to a consensus as to what qualifies as "hard fantasy" or not, let alone whether specific works met those criteria. RGTraynor 20:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, I see. Well, as I see it, that's a problem for the people using the terminology. They're welcome to argue over it. However, it is used, so Wikipedia should include information on it. If there's more than one conflicting use, then include any that can be sourced. The lack of definitiveness, especially in genre fiction, doesn't bother me. I can accept that the subject will remain in dispute. Thus the thing to do is cover the dispute, not ignore the subject. FrozenPurpleCube 20:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Hard science fiction is a well-recognized genre, and it is usually fairly clear what works appropriately fall into that class. Should be the same here, though the selection seems rather sparse and the definition is a little vague. DGG 00:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because hard scifi is recognized doesn't mean that hard fantasy is - in fact it doesn't seem like there is much academic research regarding it and the only use of the term seems to be on blogs, message boards, and the like. It's like saying that just because "hard scifi" is a legit genre then "hard horror", "hard Victorian era dramas", etc must be considered equally as legit. Koweja 01:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question Did you see the sources I referenced earlier? At least one thesis is about Hard Fantasy, and the Encyclopedia of Fantasy saw fit to include the term. This isn't just a blog/message board term, but one of enough substance to me that I'd like to know why you're ignoring these existing usages. I don't know about your other examples. Are they used in any comparable fashion? Even on blogs? FrozenPurpleCube 02:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete The term might be useful, and used occasionally, but I do not think it a widely recognized or noteworthy term. Goldfritha 00:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article, delete the category. The term sees some use and I don't mind having an article on it - but the definitions are too vague and conflicting for us to base a category scheme on. Haukur 08:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both article and Category - The genre is well known, and may need to be rewritten, but deletion is unneccisary. Weak keep for the article, as the category can explain what it is. Kelseyak90 19:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article per the sources shown by User:FrozenPurpleCube demonstrating this is not OR or a neologism. No comment on the category, as the appropriate venue is CFD (already taken there). -- Black Falcon 17:11, 17 March 2007 (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.