Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neutron stars 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   delete. This is a close call, and I've taken quite a bit of time to thoroughly evaluate the discussion. The majority of the editors who participated in this discussion agreed that the topic is not suitable for inclusion as its own article. In the end, there seems to be a consensus to delete; a weak consensus, I grant, but a consensus nonetheless. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 05:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutron stars in fiction

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

This is a trivia page, and has no encyclopedic value. Auspex1729 (talk) 04:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Neutron stars. I don't see a need for this as a separate article, but I think it can be condensed a bit and included in the main article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason to include this in the main article. It doesn't tell us anything about neutron stars. Auspex1729 (talk) 07:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It tells about neutron stars in fiction, giving them significance in popular culture which is part of their overall significance. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's circular logic; hey, the concept of "neutron stars in fiction" is significant in popular culture because we say it is. What this is is a list of fictional works in which neutron stars are mentioned ... but that's about as valid, and says about as much, as Tuvan Buddhist monks in fiction, of which examples could no doubt be provided.  Make mine Delete.   RGTraynor  23:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Would it be circular logic if I said the neutron stars are notable because of their coverage in non-fiction? Of course not. And fiction plays a role in popular culture and is another kind of notability. That's why we have article on the Millenium Falcon as well as the poorly designed Space Shuttle Atlantis. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, we have an article on the Millennium Falcon because it's discussed substantially in reliable, independent sources. Which is the only form of notability. Mintrick (talk) 02:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, insignificant non-information. Mintrick (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep When notable cultural concepts are used as significant elements in notable fiction and other notable cultural phenomena, then a discussion of them is encyclopedic. All that is necessary is to show that the activity or artifact is used in a significant way, and this can be appropriately referenced to the fictional work directly.  If there is doubt that the mention in a particular work is significant, that is an editing question to be discussed on the talk page. Deletion is only appropriate if it is being maintained that all such known uses in fiction are incidental, and that would need to be shown, not baldly asserted.  The uses here are sufficiently numerous to be kept, sourced properly,and explained, and then expanded. DGG (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: A discussion of the phenomenon and its application might be. This isn't; it's just a list, which doesn't specify that neutron stars are used in a significant way in these books (and, in a couple of the cases, are in fact not).    RGTraynor  09:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's an editing issue. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In which case feel free to edit in any reliable sources which, as Marc suggests, discuss the significance of neutron stars in fiction.   RGTraynor  03:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete as per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Unbounded and unsourced list of I-spy trivia bound together by the new and novel concept that Neutron stars compose a significant part of popular culture. --Allen3 talk 17:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete 1) there are no sources that discuss the topic of Neutron stars in fiction and as a result this page seems to be is an original research construction. 2) Wikipedia is not a directory and at present that's what this article is. In summary - the article only lists fiction stories that use neutron stars as plot elements, but does not cover, the concept of "neutron stars in fiction" much less cite sources that have covered this concept. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 20:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This list is discriminate (it has a clear inclusion criteria) and is hardly original and unsources (the fiction themselves are sources). Best, --A NobodyMy talk 20:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Sufficiently common feature of science fiction to deserve an article. Artw (talk) 04:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * comment I have added some sources to the article, I imagine more could be found. Artw (talk) 04:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Listcruft. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 07:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSCRUFT is never an adult reason for anything. If you are going to comment in AFDs, be sure to make constructive and mature contributions.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That extra "ell" makes a big difference. See WP:LISTCRUFT. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 23:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete this and all such: The article is just list of popular sources where a certain scientific term has appeared. Usual use of such terms in such sources is merely a "fancy word" and nothing more; their meaning is (usually) neither understood not preserved. Such articles may stay only if every included item explains how the term was used in the source. Materialscientist (talk) 03:58, 10 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.