Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neptune 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The result was Withdrawn (article rewritten and kept).. Closing the discission I started. Article has been TNTed and rewritten, addressing my initial concerns, no delete votes remain, the consensus is to keep the new version. (non-admin closure) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Neptune in fiction

 * – ( View AfD View log )

It is plausible this could be rewritten into something, BUT what we have here likely needs a WP:TNT treatment. The article is an unreferenced list of random works in which Neptune appears in; in many, it plays a minor role in the background. Having rewritten some similar articles from scratch (Earth in science fiction), IMHO nothing here is worth salvaging, as the examples here, while "correct", don't help establish notability of the subject, and only a few would survive if this is rewritten (based on which examples are repeated in RS). Given that SF Encyclopedia's entry for Neptune is a redirect to https://sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/outer_planets (which has a paragraph on Neptune), the best alternative to outright hard deletion I can think of would be a redirect to Solar System in fiction (a terrible, unreferenced article but one that is likely notable, as a parent article to Foo planet in fiction, a category which contains several stand-alone notable topics - Earth, Moon, Venus and Mars, for example; I intend to work on this one day). Anyway, coming back here - unless someone can find better sources and rewrite this, this should be deleted and redirected (and if anyone wants to rewrite it, I'd suggest starting something from scratch in a section at the "solar system in fiction" anyway, rather than trying to deal with this list, 99% if not 100% of which probably needs to go). Ps. I have reviewed the other SF encyclopedias, most do not have an entry on Neptune or significant discussion. Greenwood has a chapter on "Jupiter and the Outer Planets" with a very short paragraph mentioning Neptune:. There is one exception: "Science Fact and Science Fiction" has a half-page four-paragraph dedicated entry. So there is scope for rewriting this into a short entry although notability is borderline (one source is not enough for GNG's requirement of multiple sources, IMHO, but on the other hand, we have the unwritten rule of thumb that a topic that has an entry in a specialized encyclopedia probably merits one in ours) - but I stand by my view that we need to start with a WP:TNT. I will further volunteer to rewrite this myself since I have access to all the sources, but I don't want to be bogged down with the current gunk. If I have time to start the rewrite before this AfD concludes I'll link my draft here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC) Delete The nominator has done a better job than me at finding sources as I couldn’t find any treating this as a topic. Sources presented here are not significant so this fails WP:GNG as well as WP:LISTN. Information currently presented is WP:SYNTH. Vladimir.copic (talk) 12:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  10:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  10:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep This is clearly not a useless article. I don't understand the deletion critieria anymore. Leanne Sepulveda (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Leanne Sepulveda You can start by familiarizing yourself with the policies and clarifications, such as WP:ITSUSELESS aka WP:ITSUSEFUL before voting. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I've rewritten it from scratch. I disagree with the assertion that Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia is the only one of the sources that provides WP:Significant coverage; while The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Science Fiction Literature through History: An Encyclopedia aren't all that lengthy in their coverage of Neptune (and Triton), the coverage is obviously way beyond WP:Trivial mentions. TompaDompa (talk) 19:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Science Fact and Science Fiction is essentially 1.5 paragraphs about Neptune in fiction as the rest is speaking about the planet. Science Fiction Literature through History is just two paragraphs looking at Uranus and Neptune together in an 'Outer Planets' section. Similarly the SF Encyclopedia is an 'Outer Planets' section with perhaps a paragraph fully dedicated to Neptune. This isn't too convincing to me for a standalone. Maybe a merge to an Outer Planets in Fiction including Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus as this seems to be how sources treat the subject? Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that such a merge is the best idea, for a few reasons of which I'll focus on two.Firstly, I'm not sure I agree that this is how the sources treat the subject. Some of the sources have combined encyclopaedia entries for the planets, sure, but they still discuss them separately one at a time within those entries for the most part (as opposed to discussing them collectively). Moreover, a merge that seems to make sense when looking at it from the perspective of whether we should have a stand-alone article about Neptune in fiction might not make sense when looking at it from the perspective of whether we should have a stand-alone article about Uranus in fiction, Saturn in fiction, or Jupiter in fiction. Having taken a quick look at the sources with regard to Saturn and Jupiter in particular, I don't think it does make sense.Secondly, in order to create such an article we would need to have proper content about the other three planets (and ideally be able to write something of not inconsiderable length about them collectively), and at present we really don't. This does not necessarily mean that we should never do so (though that is what I'm leaning towards), but now would not be the right time regardless. TompaDompa (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Some of the sources have combined encyclopaedia entries for the planets and your statements about the state of the Saturn and Jupiter articles contradict in order to create such an article we would need to have proper content about the other three planets. The Urunus and Saturn articles are currently barely sourced and, if sources were added, they would just be the same ones (even the same page numbers) as the Neptune article. The Saturn article only sources examples except one to The Routledge Companion to Science Fiction. I looked this up and again it references an example used in a paragraph about imagining life on other worlds (this book never mentions Neptune). You have done a great job tidying this up. The best way to honour and retain this is to put it in the same context of 'outer planets'. Maybe a merge is not a discussion for here but without this I will have to stick with delete as I can't see the sigcov. At the moment it's like using sources on the Three Little Pigs to justify an article about the pig who made his house with bricks. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand. The sourcing for Jupiter in fiction, Saturn in fiction, and Uranus in fiction is absolutely atrocious and those articles need to be rewritten from scratch as this one was. The sources at those articles weren't the sources I was referring to. Rather, looking at what The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia, Science Fiction Literature through History: An Encyclopedia, and The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy: Themes, Works, and Wonders say about Jupiter and Saturn in particular, I have come to the conclusion that writing an article about Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune combined would not make sense. It's worth noting that the entry that covers Neptune covers none of the other three planets in one of these four sources, Uranus but neither Saturn nor Jupiter in another, Uranus and Saturn but not Jupiter in a third, and all four planets in the last one. You worry that I'm using sources with broader scopes to write about narrower ones, and I worry that you're doing the opposite (why would we bundle Jupiter with the other three planets when the only source that does so is The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy?). On the subject of WP:Significant coverage, it should also be noted that Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. TompaDompa (talk) 00:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I’ve withdrawn my !vote as I think the article is in pretty good shape now - excellent work! I am still in favour of a merge but I think it’s really just a preference at this point rather than a policy/guideline argument. Bravo again! Vladimir.copic (talk) 13:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per TomaDompa's rewrite. There is certainly room for further discussion on whether it should remain as a standalone article or combined into an "outer planets" article per the suggestion above, but the immediate concern of the previous version of this "article" being an indiscriminate, unreferenced mess has been resolved.  Rorshacma (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Withdraw. Effectively, the WP:TNT has happened, without the history being deleted - that's all good, thank you TompaDompa. No need for further discussion, any merge discussions, if desired, can take place on article's talk. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  07:18, 5 November 2021 (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.