Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black holes in 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. JForget 00:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Black holes in fiction

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The article's only content is a list of trivia and pop culture references. Auspex1729 (talk) 05:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep a notable feature of fiction. Relevant to understanding how black holes have been understood and described in society. Also notable and worth including. If everything related to pop-culture was expunged from the encyclopedia we'd lost a lot of interesting and relevant material. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's not great at the moment but this has the potential to be expanded into a decent article.--Michig (talk) 06:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  -- the wub  "?!"  14:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Needs sources to make it less like a list but still a useful article.  Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: A notable part of fiction. Joe Chill (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Part of an apparent campaign by the nom to remove all articles dealing with ipc of concepts in physics, and ipc sections of articles of astrophysical topics. If it were true that such sections or articles were not permitted in Wikipedia, then these would be appropriate deletions, but that's not the consensus. DGG (talk) 03:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Delete Keep This article does not cite sources that discuss the concept of black holes in fiction not does it seem likely that this can be remedied as the subject itself, black holes in fiction, while popular, is not notable. The division into "Early uses" and then "Popularisation" seems to be original research. If that division is removed then the article becomes a thinly disguised list of appearances of black holes in fiction media meaning Wikipedia is not a directory applies. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 20:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed to keep as the coverage Colonel Warden found (six bullets down) satisfies coverage of the subject. WP:N asks for sources plural but I'm satisfied with the book Colonel Warden found plus that there is a verifiable list of black holes being used in fiction. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 21:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, the article as it stands does not meet the requirements of independent verifiability. Mintrick (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * what isn't verifiable: that the fiction exists, or that it discusses black holes? The content in a fiction can be sourced from the work itself. DGG (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Topics need to be notable in and of themselves. The topic is black holes in fiction. Unless someone independent and reliable writes about that, the article isn't notable (or, if you prefer, verifiable from independent sources; they mean the same thing). Mintrick (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep (or merge) I am not going to stick my head in the sand and pretend I have never heard of black holes in fiction. There will be some secondary sourcing in sci-fi commentary somewhere, but (shock/horror) it might wait till someone has to visit a library. Could be merged too as the characteristics of fictional black holes are generally suggested by real ones. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:V and WP:N, as subject is verifiable through published books per this search and this search and after all a notable film is even titled The Black Hole. No reason presented why we would not at worst merge and redirect per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE in any event.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Per DGG and A Nobody. Jclemens (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - A few sources to establish that black holes are a recurring theme in SF would be nice, but it;s not like that's actually in doubt. Artw (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep No case to answer. And we don't need to wait - I found a substantial source in just a minute of searching. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Showing how something real in science has been featured throughout notable workers of fiction over the years, is a perfectly reasonable article to have on Wikipedia.  D r e a m Focus  04:06, 8 August 2009 (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.