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. Changes made to the article during the time of the AfD have accordingly made it difficult to judge different !votes. I would suggest editors start a civil discussion on the talk page to improve the article, or come to a more certain conclusion on deletion, etc, if that can't be decided here. (non-admin closure) Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 07:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Claus machine[edit]

Santa Claus machine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This is an unreferenced WP:OR. The concept is notable but it is also a likely content fork of Molecular assembler. I suggest WP:ATD-R redirecting it there, unless a better redirect target is proposed. Due to lack of footnotes, I am afraid there's nothing to merge. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Technology. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Molecular assembler: per nom until the term is notable enough for a standalone article. Owen× ☎ 15:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Like it's stated in the nomination, I think this topic is notable. The article is in bad shaped due to lack of citations, but its basic tenets can be verified by e.g. this book by Freitas and Merkle. Thus it is not a case of WP:TNT in my view. I also don't think it's a content fork of Molecular assembler: While I see similarities and some overlap, secondary sources do not equate them, and so we probably should not either. Specifically, Freitas and Merkle distinguish the two concepts by the Santa Claus machine focussing on the macroscale and the molecular assembler focussing on the micro/molecular scale. Daranios (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Obviously a distinct concept from the "molecular assembler", though it might not be at the WP:COMMONNAME for such a device. Maybe Replicator (device) may be a better name for it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Zxcvbnm @Daranios Distinct how? I am genuinly interested in the answer; I find the concept fascinating (and I was aware of it for many years) but AFAIK this is, again, just a cool synonym for molecular assembler. I've added some refs to the article, but it seems to me just like a synonym for the general concept. And I don't think the macro vs micro scale makes sense; [1] explicitly notes that "The famous “replicator” of the science fiction television and movie series “Star Trek” also functions as a Santa Claus Machine". SCM does not have to be big, it can operate on small level. In fact, per that article, if it is created, it will replicate itself and there will be many such machines. Note that Replicator (nanotechnology) redirects to molecular assembler. Replicator (Star Trek) is arguably notable due to popculture impact of the show, but the name variant we discuss here is much more niche. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Piotrus: On the one hand compare the macroscale definition with the microscale defininition by Freitas and Merkle. And/or directly the chapters for Taylor Santa Claus Machine and Drexler Molecular Assemblers. To summarize myself, while I see some overlap, the molecular assembler centers around the ability to "move molecular objects, position them with atomic precision". The Santa Claus machine on the other hand just vaporizes raw materials, then sorts by element (that's the one step done "atom by atom"), but the reassembling is then done on a macroscopic scale which is already feasible today, more or less using manufacturing techniques already available today. Star Trek's replicator plotwise can do the same, though there might be more limitations upwards then for the Santa Claus machine. From the in-universe explanation, it creates its matter directly from energy, no processing of raw materials required. All those concepts obviously have the same general idea behind them. But both scientists and sci-fi writers sat down and came up with distinct variations within that overall idea. And I think we should document those as long as they are backed up by enough secondary sources. Daranios (talk) 13:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thinking a bit more about it, it seems to me that "Replicator (???)" could be used as the name for the parent idea of all these variations, as Freitas and Merkle use "(Kinematic Machine) Replicator" as the heading for both discussed types. But I am not familiar enough to say if this would be the WP:COMMONNAME. And I am open with regard to the question if Santa Claus machine and the other concepts would better be discussed in various articles or sections of a parent article. Daranios (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Daranios Right, although some arguably have stand-alone notability for various reasons. I don't think this one does, however, and I still not convinced the macro/micro scale distinctions are significant enough to warrant splits. That said, I am not seeing many other articles right now that would cover the same topics. It would be nice to hear from someone more familiar with the physics dimension. Is this a serious topic or more of a sf trope? Google Scholar hits at "About 29 results" do not inspire much confidence in the former. And Topmpa Dompa query below also don't do it for the latter, hence the notability concerns. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Piotrus: In my view there are simply enough secondary sources to allay notability concerns in my view (the one I've quoted, the ones Zxcvbnm has listed below, and just to add two more, Robot Spacecraft, p. 208-209, and The Spike each have a good paragraph). It seems to me now that it is more of a scientific than a sci-fi concept, which might explain some of the dearth of results within TompaDompa's search. Which brings me back to what I've already said, that in my view this is fine to have a stand-alone article, but covering it within a larger context based on WP:NOPAGE might be just as good. And yeah, input form "someone more familiar with the physics dimension" to decide that would be great. Daranios (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Daranios For a scientific concept, I'd like to see at least one academic paper mentioning this in its heading (seeing such stuff is why I've just created the article on artificial planet). WP:SIGCOV issue, I guess, and as we all know, it's a blurry line between a passing mention and in-depth treatment. I don't think a paragraph here or there is enough if we have a valid redirect&merge target, but - let's see what others think. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment For what it's worth, the Historical Dictionary of Science Fiction does not have an entry for this term, nor does Brave New Words: The Oxford Dictionary of Science Fiction. It also does not appear in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. A simple Google Books search gives some results, though it's worth noting that there are some false positives (such as the title of a Pettson and Findus story) and this source which is derivative of the very Wikipedia article under discussion (and therefore unusable). My (admittedly cursory) WP:BEFORE search came up with significantly less material than I would expect for a notable science fiction concept, so it may be that this and related concepts belong at an article with a broader scope. It could also be a terminology issue, I suppose. At any rate, the current version of the article needs to go. TompaDompa (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I stripped the article down to a barebones version, removing most of the unsourced material (had I removed all of it, nothing at all would have remained). TompaDompa (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @TompaDompa: Surely you could also add something instead of just WP:DEMOLISHing the article. There are sources out there that are usable if one looks for them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We can presumably all add material if there are freely available usable sources, just as we can all remove material that needs to go.

  I have to say that "demolishing the house while it's still being built" describes the situation here extremely poorly: the article was created back in November 2005, initially as a redirect to Assembler (nanotechnology) (a page that was later merged with Molecular assembler). The content was first added to Santa claus machine (note different capitalization) back in December 2005, and then copied-and-pasted (rather than the page moved) to the current title. Jumping ahead a decade or two, the article remained entirely unsourced when it was nominated for deletion on 12 December. Nobody edited the article whatsoever between that and my removal of unsourced content on 15 December. By no stretch of the imagination can this be considered "still being built". TompaDompa (talk) 13:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per policy of Wikipedia WP:NEO:

Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term. Care should be taken when translating text into English that a term common in the host language does not create an uncommon neologism in English. As Wiktionary's inclusion criteria differ from Wikipedia's, that project may cover neologisms that Wikipedia cannot accept. Editors may wish to contribute an entry for the neologism to Wiktionary instead.

बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:46, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The concept appears under the term Santa Claus machine in a number of books and scientific publications. Not a very large number it seems, true, but I personally think this is above the threshold of WP:NEO. Also, as I believe there is enough on the concept to fullfill WP:WHYN, why not document it? As the term has been around since 1978, I don't think this article qualifies as an attempt to increase usage of the term. Daranios (talk) 20:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mention that policy because the structure of this article is like a dictionary entry (definition and origin) and the concept is seemed to not be based in many sources. Also, I missed to mention WP:NOTDICT too. बिनोद थारू (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An earlier use of the concept under a different name is the "Autofac", in a 1955 Philip K. Dick story of the same name, in which a factory is set up to make all sorts of goods for humans out of raw materials, only to become a threat to the humans because it is using up all the resources to continue making the goods. BD2412 T 04:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but find a better name. There is a clearly notable and well-trod concept in science fiction of a machine that can make whatever you want from raw materials. BD2412 T 19:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Close as no consensus, channel opinions to discussion This has been going on long enough that the immediately prior delete !vote is based on a significantly different version of the article that looks reasonably like a dictdef of a neologism... only that's a substantially different version of the article than the one that was nominated. If this is AfDeletion rather than AfDiscussion, the clear answer is that we're not going to delete this, but whether it's improved, merged, or something different can be hashed out outside of this process. I have no strong feelings as to which, but when we're starting to get contradictory !votes because the article has sufficiently changed during the multiply relisted discussion... Jclemens (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2023 (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.