Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional astronauts


 * 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. &mdash; Crazytales▼ ▼(talk) 05:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

List of fictional astronauts

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:NOT - Indiscriminant list of fictional astronauts. These sort of articles have no utilitarian or encyclopedic value; the scope of this article is so broad that it is unmaintainable and useless. We're not a collection of everything that ever was (especially when dealing with fiction, or "things that never were, but someone imagined"). /Blaxthos 13:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. This is a well-organized, well-maintained and reasonably comprehensive list, with clearly defined parameters (it is not "indiscriminate"), which is relevant to a real research topic: the presentation of the astronaut as a fictional archetype.  There is no good reason for deleting this list. We have on Wikipedia lists of fictional doctors, fictional scientists, fictional Presidents and Vice Presidents, computers, diseases, schools, newspapers, spaceships et cetera.  Why not a list of fictional astronauts? RandomCritic 14:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Noted that you are the primary author of the article. ;-)  /Blaxthos
 * Noted that you are the nominator of the article. In other words, this is not an argument. His opinion is as good as yours. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I see nothing wrong with authors defending their own articles. I've done it. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 16:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with TenPoundHammer about editors defending articles they started, except it must be taken into consideration that articles are no longer their own. Useight 00:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My intent was never to give the impression that anyone's opinion is less valuable than another, but rather that people shepharding/authoring articles often may tend to ignore the rules in favor of stuff they like. /Blaxthos 16:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not the "author"; I did not create the article. I'm just one of several editors. No rules have been ignored; however, there seems to be a mania for inventing "rules" that don't exist, misinterpreting existing rules, and mistaking essays for policy. RandomCritic 16:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, let me try again. You're the editor with the most number of edits to the article.  Besides that, I think this article becomes a problem of scope, WP:RS, and WP:OR.  How are you deciding what is an astronaut?  How come Jean Luc Picard isn't mentioned?  Or Chewbacca?  It becomes very hard to maintain a list about fictional astronauts when there is little operationalization of the term and the people in question don't exist.  My major point is that this is horribly incomplete (at best), and an unreferenced pile of sci-fi references at worst.  I doubt anyone is ever going to search wikipedia for "List of fictional astronauts", and I don't see any analysis of the "astronaut archetype" (this is, after all, a list; such would be violating WP:OR anyway).  /Blaxthos 16:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no idea how many edits I have made. A great many of them have been cosmetic, relating to the shape of the tables and the ordering of material.  However, as nominator has already conceded that this is an irrelevant point, I don't see why he is pushing it.
 * While being an editor of the article may be held to compromise my objectivity, it has this advantage: I know the shape and scope of the article a lot better than nominator. Had nominator bothered to read the talk page of the article, he would have seen there set out a specific set of criteria for inclusion.  There is no problem of scope, and "what is an astronaut" is clearly defined, to wit:
 * A "fictional astronaut" is a space traveller appearing in works of fiction who is:
 * 1. Human
 * 2. On a flight originating from Earth
 * 3. Living during the early Space Age, i.e. between the beginnings of real space travel and the near future (say c. 1960-2020).
 * And for marginal cases there are the following preferred criteria:
 * 4. Part of a real space program (like NASA) or a fictional knockoff of the same.
 * 5. Preferably using space travel technology within the realm of the possible. Preference should be given to astronauts depicted using real technology (e.g. Apollo, Soyuz, Space Shuttle) or close fictional knockoffs of the same.
 * That is why you don't see Chewbacca or Jean-Luc Picard. The list is, within its stated boundaries, if not perfectly complete then at least containing most of the major works in which fictional astronauts appear.
 * Of course there is no "analysis". This is a list.  What I said was that this kind of list is relevant to someone doing research, e.g., on the presentation of astronauts in various media.  And yes, people do search wikipedia for "List of fictional astronauts"; the fact that nominator isn't one of them is irrelevant.  Nominator further claims that the list is "unmaintainable" -- a claim proven false by the fact that the list both has been and continues to be maintained.  In short, every one of nominator's claims is either untrue or not grounds for deletion.RandomCritic 16:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, currently, there appears to be a sort of "hype" of nominating lists for deletion, whereas lists are valuable parts of this encyclopedia as they have many advantages over categories (e.g. allowing redlinks, references, sorting other than A-Z and table-like formatting). This particular article certainly is not "indiscrimate", there are obvious criteria for inclusion. Neither are "unmaintainable and useless" arguments for deletion. The second is just an opinion of the nominator, the first is also true for many articles in Wikipedia that wouldn't dare delete and therefore certainly not policy. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT and WP:NOT. Who cares about fictional astronauts? Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 16:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - indiscriminate and arbitrary and potentially limitless. Loosely associated directory. Not seeing the point of trying to list everything that has a fictional astronaut in it, nor am I understanding the rationale in the selection of these fictional astronauts and not others, nor why some characters in space are considered "astronauts" while other characters in space are not (see Moonraker, which lists Bond and Goodhead but not Drax or Jaws for example) nor what it is this list of characters is supposed to tell us about fictional astronauts, the medium in which they appear, their relation to each other or the real world. An actual verified article on how the representation of astronauts has changed pre- and post-space race would no doubt be fascinating. This list of random astronauts is not. Otto4711 16:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I want to comment on your "relation to the each other or the real world". When I first created the entry for the astronauts from the novel Voyagers, I had this line as part of a rather lengthy description: "Stoner's ride, as the first American on a Soyuz, predates Norm Thagard's actual trip on Soyuz TM-21 by 14 years."  Do you feel that inclusions like this improve the article?  Thanks.  --EarthPerson 20:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * See notes above. The list is not indiscriminate.  The criteria are perhaps "arbitrary" but no more so than the definition of the word astronaut itself.  The list is potentially limitless, but only insofar as people may continue to publish books or shoot films with astronaut characters.  There is nothing "random" about the list, although it is doubtless missing a number of less-well known works; however, lists are always works in progress and do not need to be complete to be included in Wikipedia. The essential quality a list needs to have is strong criteria for inclusion, which this list possesses. RandomCritic 16:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The essential quality that an article needs to have is meeting all relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. A list may be perfectly formatted per WP:LIST and still be unacceptable for not adhering to other policies and guidelines. You have not addressed the associational issues with this article, namely, that the things on the list have nothing in common beyond including a spaceman. Otto4711 18:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A spaceman of the space age--87.227.77.85 18:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A fictional spaceman of the space age. /Blaxthos 18:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The last criticism by Otto4711 happens to be untrue; the items listed are fictions about human exploratory space travel in one way or another (rather naturally). However, as this is a List of fictional astronauts, then of course the common thread is going to be the presence of a fictional astronaut.  Commenter suggests, via nebulous references to "associational issues", that this isn't a valid criterion for a list.  Given that Wikipedia contains many other lists of fictional people by occupation, and given that the category astronaut is itself quite notable and distinctive (much more so, I should say, than "doctor" or "scientist"), the criticism lacks strength. RandomCritic 18:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has other lists like it is unpersuasive. I note that any number of similar lists (under a title like "___ in popular culture") have been or are about to be deleted for the same WP:NOT concerns that aren't being addressed here. The notability or distinctiveness of real astronauts is irrelevant to whether this article should stand or fall. The fact remains that you have not demonstrated that the association between, for instance, fictional astronaut Victor Caroon from "The Quatermass Experiment" is in any way related to, say, fictional spy-who-happened-to-go-into-space James Bond from Moonraker or that either of them is in any way related to fictional astronauts Homer Simpson or Barney Gumble. What do these astronauts, drawn from across multiple media and multiple genres, tell us about being a fictional astronaut, or portraying a fictional astronaut, or about the media or genre from which they are drawn, or each other, or the world? Otto4711 19:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. The criteria seem fairly definite to me, and the list isn't going to become unmanageably long. I don't see a burning need for it, but I haven't seen a strong argument for deletion. Clarityfiend 17:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Not at all arbitrary, and it is not WP:OR either. - Cyborg Ninja 17:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I was just in need of the title to a particular story, for professional reasons, and all I had to go on was the name of one character, and the fact that an alien spacecraft and a soyuz were involved. And, hey presto! - there's the title, first up on Wikipedia. Which startled me. In a good way. One can never tell *what* seemingly valueless chunk of information, may suddenly be vitally useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.40.149 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 29 July 2007
 * Keep. Fictional astronauts seem to be a notable topic to me, and therefore I see no reason not to have a list of them.  Enough information is included in the list that organisation as a category would not work as well.  Seems like a prime example of what a list should be used for. JulesH 22:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per JulesH reasoning. A category of this would lead to numerous stubs that most likely would not qualify as articles.  And yes, I'm a sometime contributor to this list.  --EarthPerson 21:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I've been reading The Return by Buzz Aldrin and John Barnes, and it occurs to me that most fictional astronauts are portrayed with the input of persons knowledgable about the topic. Along the way, we are (subversively) taught lessons about physics, astronomy, and other science that we normally would not have learned in school.  The article makes an excellent navigation tool for those instances.  Mandsford 01:12, 1 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.