- 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 delete both. Sr13 00:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 2006 in fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- 2007 in fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An orphaned grab-bag of random trivial facts from different fictional contexts. These works have absolutely nothing in common other than being fictional and happening to reference a shared aribtrary number for a year. Note that the year project explicitly rejected putting fictional dates in real year articles as useless trivia; sequestering this useless trivia in its own article doesn't suddenly make it useful.
By the way, minor fictional points are generally considered to fail WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:NOT#IINFO, and sorting things by in-universe dates fails WP:WAF. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both - I don't think you can have a more "loosely" connected criteria than this. While I'm not sure if "useless" (by itself) is a reason to delete any more than "useful" is a reason to keep, AMiB brings up a lot of other problematic issues with the list. ◄Zahakiel► 22:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Useless is a reason to delete because...well, Wikipedia doesn't need anything useless. Useful isn't an argument to keep in the face of other arguments to delete because there are lots of useful things that aren't part of Wikipedia's mission. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with that in principle. What I mean is that "useless" is often a judgment call on the part of individuals, and needs to be carefully argued in AfDs. But you know that already; as I'd mentioned, your other reasons coupled with it were quite on-target. ◄Zahakiel► 17:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair point. "Useless" is kind of like "IAR"; you need to explain your reasoning in detail or it's empty proclaimation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with that in principle. What I mean is that "useless" is often a judgment call on the part of individuals, and needs to be carefully argued in AfDs. But you know that already; as I'd mentioned, your other reasons coupled with it were quite on-target. ◄Zahakiel► 17:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Useless is a reason to delete because...well, Wikipedia doesn't need anything useless. Useful isn't an argument to keep in the face of other arguments to delete because there are lots of useful things that aren't part of Wikipedia's mission. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Mostly trivia articles and likely incompleteJForget 22:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Canonical indiscriminate information. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete them both as pure trivia. Useight 23:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both. One would expect an article named Year x in fiction to be about trends and tendencies in fiction in the year mentioned, and to have references to third parties discussing the year in fiction. These articles are just lists of what a few editors think are 'notable' works of fiction. No attribution as to why these works are being singled out. --Charlene 00:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both per nom and above. Bearian 00:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep both I'm aware of the origin of these, which began before the years 2006 and 2007, when people were recounting how these years were viewed in fiction written before those years. After 2006 and 2007 transpired, the "fictional" part had to be separated from the original article, since the fictional events couldn't very well be kept with the actual events. Thus, "2007 in fiction" has a reference to a 1992 film called "Wild Palms" that was set 15 years "in the future". I hate to scare all of you, but the article for 2008 has 2008 in fiction as a sub-article called "2008 in fiction". Naturally, you would want to delete that since it contains "useless" material and GASP crystalballing (events that HAVEN"T HAPPENED YET). However, there is a purpose for these "--- in fiction" articles in that they are records of what science fiction authors, etc., envisioned (usually incorrectly) for 2006 and 2007 such as moonbases and flying cars. One has to be literate in science fiction to understand that stuff, but that's why it's called "2007 in fiction" instead of "2007 in real life". Anyway, no real reason to delete this or any other articles of that nature, since obviously they can't be merged back into the original article 165.166.14.50 20:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both Articles do nothing to explain notability of these particular use of these years. At the moment they are just lists. Nigel Ish 21:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all Science fiction is stupid. You hit it right on the head when you said that these were incorrectly predictions. None of the people on here is notable. I never heard of Joe Haldeman, but I think he was Nixon's aide. I've heard of Robert Hienlein but the only thing he ever did was Starship Troopers. It's not a matter of being literate. Wikipedia is not a bookstore for science fiction writers. This is dumb. 165.166.14.50 16:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- None of what you said is a reason to delete this article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep as per what User:165.166 said (the first post anyway-- can't see why he/she wants to keep it if he thinks Joe Haldeman and Robert A. "Hienlein" are "stupid". I can't figure out the nominator either, unless the last post is from someone pretending to be Men in Bl[]ck. This shouldn't be merged into the articles about '06 and '07. I think that people blur the line too much between fantasy and reality as it is. Most Wikipedians have never seen another Great Dane besides Scooby Doo, I think. Perhaps rather than having separate articles for "2006 in fiction" and "2007 in fiction", there should be something encompassing the Twenty-first Century as viewed by science fiction authors, which is something that's been done by people like Edward Bellamy in Looking Backward and Arthur C. Clarke in 2001 (the novel with HAL, not the year 2001). This stuff has a place somewhere, maybe not in a zillion different articles. Mandsford 23:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- None of what you said is a reason to delete this article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:21, 20 July 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.