Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SpyFi

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus), consider renaming this but that is a debate for the talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SpyFi

Delete neologism. Article is dicdef with list of supposed entries in this genre, though I'm struggling to think of many spy films/tv shows that don't include elements of science fiction. Google results are in the mere hundreds, most of which appear to be Wikipedia mirrors. Postdlf 05:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, neologism. Agree with nominator. K1Bond007 05:34, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This is a relatively recently identified subgenre category that has been the subject of at least one book. I think the article needs serious expansion, but I don't see this as a dicdef as it's an article about a genre. Deleting this will create redlinks in a number of other articles (Alias (TV series) for certain). 23skidoo 15:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but expand. Agree with 23skidoo. 194.152.245.146 16:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
spy films/tv shows that don't include elements of science fiction — How about The Lady Vanishes, North by Northwest, Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, The Russia House, The Spy Who Came in from the Cold, Three Days of the Condor, and The Third Man? ☺ Whilst sources for this particular categorization are thin on the ground, this person and this person both appear to consider "SpyFi" to be a genre, and this reviewer and this reviewer consider Alias to be a specific instance of it. The CIA considers Spy-Fi to be a simple shorthand for spy fiction, though. Vote pending. Uncle G 16:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Zero usage. "Recently discovered" genre? How does one discover a genre? Recently minted neologism and a distinction without difference. Geogre 18:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is the kind of thing I used wikipedia for when I first came on this site. I would fine a (relatively) obscure reference, and would look it up here... and lo-and-behold, the term usually had an article. Removing entries like this reduces wikipedia's strength as a comprehensive resource. Themindset 18:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It appears it should be "Spy-Fi", based on googling. This reveals a lot more usages in established sources (i.e., not Wikipedia mirrors or do-it-yourself websites). I'm reconsidering... Postdlf 18:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd support moving to this alternate spelling if the article is kept. I rarely see it as "SpyFi", usually it's hyphenated. 23skidoo 21:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still on the fence on this. Looking at a lot of sites on "Spy-Fi", most are refering to Spy fiction, which we already have. The only place I've ever heard of Spy-Fi or SpyFi in which the article defines it is at Wikipedia and its mirrors. At this point I could agree with a redirect, but it still seems like neologism to me. K1Bond007 03:00, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
NN, D. ComCat 22:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
NNeologism. Delete. R adiant _>|< 12:09, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism, original research. Quale 20:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say keep, although it should be written as "Spy-Fi". Binadot 02:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The book is real, and usage of the word will probably expand in the future. The article should be more substantial, though.Bjones
Keep. I find the tendency of spy TV show script writers (and also authors, of course) to invent gadgets, with total freedom (as in without any knowledge of or reference to actual contemporary technology), to be disturbing. Thus having a term for this sort of thing is useful, because then we can talk about that which is not spy-fi. I think the term spy-fi (or spyfi or SpyFi) is badly chosen, but I can't come up with a better one. --Peter Knutsen, 23th of July 2005.
(Above vote is user's first edit) --14:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete --Phroziac (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I say KEEP the idea behind the article. But I am open to suggestions for an alternative term for 'SpyFi.'
- Unsigned comment by 63.98.134.175; IP's only edit
Redirect to spy fiction. -Sean Curtin 02:34, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain for now, but I'd like to point out that some of the selections on the list seem like maybe someone's getting too enthusiastic. 24? Maybe it does have science-fiction elements and I just never heard about them, but I'm pretty sure Danger Man doesn't qualify -- they used some advanced technology, yes, but nothing that actually pushed into the realm of science fiction that I can think of. They say that when you have a hammer in your hand, every problem looks like a nail, and I suspect that to someone who just discovered a new sub-classification of spy fiction, every spy fiction looks like... -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Expand and maybe make it become a Category Farlstendoiro 10:41, 26 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.