Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astronomical names in popular culture


 * 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Astronomical names in popular culture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Trivia collection, consisting of bare-mention uses of astronomical names. Unacceptable per WP:FIVE. Eyrian 17:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This handwaving does not constitute a valid reason for deletion under Wikipedia's deletion policy. Digwuren 17:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep as per above.  Onnaghar (T/C) 18:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. List of items that share no characteristics save that their names are those (or similar to those) of stars and planets. Uninformative both about the items listed and about the astronomical objects. Unacceptable per WP:NOT. Deor 19:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - yet another directory of loosely associated items. They have nothing in common past happening to use one of potentially thousands if not tens of thousands of "astronomical names." Tells us nothing about the names, tells us nothing about the real objects with the names, tells us nothing abut the fiction that uses the names or their relation to each other and nothing about the real world. Ooh, I said "real world," quick, someone add it to the article! Otto4711 20:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * comment on loosely associated. Glad to have a chance to start discussing it: names are important. People use names as deliberate references, to indicate a collection with the object named.  When people write creative works, the names indicate the fundamental them or the orientation or the influence. they are there for a purpose, and this is a close association. It doesnt tell us about the stars and planets, it does tell us about what the subjects and purposes and intent of the work. Works of imagination exist in the real world. there have been requests for more discussion of aspects of them other than their plot. I agree with Otto though, that it might be better to have separate articles for the major astronomical objects that justify it.  DGG (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I will thank you not to attempt to use me to justify separate articles for each astronomical name. Such lists are no more likely to be acceptable than this one is. Subdividing a large pile of crap rarely results in anything other than smaller piles of crap. As for your claim that every one of these names indicate some fundamental theme, I want a reliable source for each and every one of them supporting the notion that the name was chosen for the express purpose of advancing some theme or another as opposed to, say, the author thought it sounded pretty. Otto4711 01:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. I created this page because a surprisingly large number of people have felt the need to place the items listed on pages dealing directly with the stars and planets mentioned (it will be noticed that none of the items included refer directly to the stars or planets, but merely share their names).  As clearly they did not belong on pages dealing with stars, etc., I thought they might as well have their own page.  Personally I feel that most of the references are trivial; but then I don't care for video and computer games (the source of many of the references), and a great many other people do.  So it wasn't my call to say they should be simply deleted against the very many people who do find this information significant. RandomCritic 23:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, nominator did not carefully think out reasons for deletion or present a good case for deletion. Plus it appears to be flirting with breaking WP:POINT due to the sheer nature of AFD's of this nature listed all at once. Just because an article is dealing with popular culture does not mean it has to be deleted. If anything, the opposite is more likely to be true. Due to the nature of popular culture an article to do with it would tend to have more potential references in the popular culture than others would have. Mathmo Talk 00:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, Now we have names in popular culture? By definition that is WP:NOT of loosely related topics and indiscriminate. Crazysuit 02:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 17:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete between "handwaving" and "delete all" there's something in between. This one is, as it says, about astronomical names in popular culture, but it's a parlor game that could go on for ever.  Mercury and Saturn-- they're both lines of automobiles.  Neptune and Jupiter, they're towns in New Jersey and Florida.  Asteroids and Uranus, 8 year olds giggle when they hear about these.  It's what an IPC shouldn't be-- everything about anything.  This article has Sirius problems (Sirius can be used as a pun because it sounds like "serious").  Mandsford 02:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per the above especially Mandsford. Carlossuarez46 20:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Just a collection of loosely associated topics, fails WP:NOT. Jay32183 23:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.