Deletion of List of hard science fiction films and television

Comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (|step 3).  I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 22
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:AFDHOWTO)

Comment: Considered , but sources could probably be found if someone wanted to look for them (e.g. the page creator). &nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: Some of these rules may have come out of the source below, but even then, I agree with Stvfetterly that some agreement of what is classified as hard science fiction needs to be determined beyond just a single source per : ''A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources''.  The author might consider a complete rewrite of this list based on what is written in the sources found at Hard science fiction
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)

Comment: That "hard SF" is an extant term is not in dispute, but that's not the point of the AfD.  The point is that there is no consensus ''definition'' of the term, and as such a list claiming to be based on the term cannot be validly sourced.  Like with many a similar subjective term, I doubt you could get any five SF fans to agree on a definition, nor any five SF fans to agree that any given film meets it.That being said, for pity's sake, this is as obvious an essay, based on criteria solely chosen and solely interpreted by the article's creator, as I've seen in my seven years on Wikipedia.  It's screamingly illegitimate |original research, and I'm astonished that anyone could advocate keeping it.  (Which, in fact, very few people have, and I'm likewise astonished that this AfD has been held open for three weeks with such a strong consensus to Delete
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)