Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planets in science fiction
- 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 per WP:SNOW. Hemlock Martinis 21:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Planets in science fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
List of trivial, loosely associated topics, topped with plenty of original research. Eyrian 23:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep OR can be sourced or removed. List section is reasonably highly organized though. Probably should be split off. FrozenPurpleCube 23:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As per Manticore. Well organized, but this is really three articles in one space. We have a rather long introductory essay that has a single source; then a list of blue-links to fictional universes (Good Lord, is there REALLY a "Category: Sonic the Hedgehog planets"? Oh, I'm getting nauseous. This is why I think categories are way overused); finally, a list of fictional planets drawn from various sources. Fix, but don't delete. Mandsford 00:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. This is an amazingly outrageous AfD -- a classic example of abuse of the AfD process. The nominator has never been involved in this article; has nothing on the talk page; has not even made any statement that anything is wrong with this article; and has simply thrown up a deletion notice. Every general claim made is unsubstantiated, for the simple reason that it's false: this is not trivial; it is not loosely associated; nor is there "original research". Nominator hasn't provided a single substantive criticism in the proposal, which doesn't even meet the laugh test. Is it too much to suggest that nominator is making these deletion proposals in order to make a point -- namely, that he hates fiction-related articles? Is the repeated failure of his deletion proposals not sinking in? Nominator is wasting everybody's time with crap like this. What is the proper response to this kind of tying up of Wikipedia administrative processes with ridiculous proposals? RandomCritic 00:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per FrozenPurpleCube. Edward321 02:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is the way to deal with this. As for the long indiscriminate list that the above link boasts of deleting, I hope that by this time 6 months most of them will back in improved form. But this one is not exactly similar--it's much more general, meaningful and essential to the encyclopedia. The others , many of the them, are good, or at least could be good, but this is necessary. How planets are trivial, how the use of planets in SF work is trivial, how the use of individual planets in individual SF works is trivial, all three of these escape me. And the reviews for every one of them shoudl source it, for the people who believe that basic plot elements can not be taken from the work itself.DGG (talk) 04:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Manticore. Wl219 05:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Close per WP:SNOW Artw 18:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep a valid page per all the above, especially User:RandomCritic. Wikipedia is not a hunting ground. The exploration of planets is one of the most common tropes in science fiction. --JayHenry 18:30, 26 August 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.