Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schrödinger's cat 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 of the debate was keep. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Schrödinger's cat in fiction
The article is just a list of every time an author, director, artist, etc ever mentions a cat named Schrödinger or makes some reference to Schrödinger's cat. None of them are notable. Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information commonbrick 04:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete commonbrick 04:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Sort of a fun article that might contribute to my reading list a bit, but not the sort of thing that belongs in an encyclopedia. Many of the items themselves are notable, but none of the mentions are. If the article is kept, I would be willing to help clean it up and organize the list a bit. &mdash; HorsePunchKid &rarr;&#x9F9C; 05:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote to keep after Anville's efforts to make the article more readable an useful. I'd encourage anyone who has voted to delete or merge to check out the current version and reconsider! &mdash; HorsePunchKid &rarr;&#x9F9C; 21:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. These lists are without encyclopdeic value. DV8 2XL 09:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but cleanup. Much of what is there right now is, quite clearly, listcruft; however, this is the sort of thing which helps establish how a scientific idea percolates into popular culture.  I'd suggest trimming out the bullet points which say "So-and-so has a cat named Schrödinger" and lumping them into a paragraph:  "Naming a cat Schrödinger has become an in-joke, appealing to the humor of those who have studied physics. . ."  Convert some of the list to prose and organize it better, and it's worth keeping.  Anville 10:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with HorsePunchKid; ultimately unencyclopedic and (if you think about it) arbitrary. Dottore So 11:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It would be original research to rescue this article.  I agree it's good material.  It belongs on a personal website. Durova 13:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Schrödinger's Cat under a section of "Schrodinger's Cat in popular culture" for reasons explained by Anville Spearhead 15:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge - we don't want to let this particular cat out of the box, do we? - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 15:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I removed this section from Schrödinger's Cat for the same reasons it was nominated here. While a back link from an article on a artistic work to the underlying science is valid, and a discussion of the impact a scientific phenomenon or theory has had on culture is valid (baring original research), long lists of books, movies, and TV shows that have used these ideas adds little value to an explanation of a theory. DV8 2XL 15:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge per Spearhead. Perodicticus 15:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, and clean up. This scientific theory has influenced fiction, we just need to be more disciplined in describing how. Trollderella 16:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up as above. I thought only Robert Anton Wilson wrote about "The Cat" but I guess I was wrong. 23skidoo 17:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge - modify it to prose, trim away irrelevant references, and merge it with Schrödinger's Cat. It's completely useless to mention that the name (only) pops up in every single work of fiction listed, but where it is an integral part of the plot it's worth being mentioned. Something like "The name Schrödinger has become associated with cats in a number of modern works of fiction (for example ... ), and the concept of Schrödinger's Cat appears as a central premise in numerous science-fiction works (for example ...)." Z iggurat  23:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment So, are any of you that say the article needs to be cleaned up and converted to prose going to DO somthing about it, or are you just hoping that wanting it badly enough will make it happen? DV8 2XL 00:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It's far more likely that we will if it isn't deleted... Trollderella 02:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * So get to work. Nothing is stopping you from working on an article while it's under an AfC, I've seen several topics saved that way. I'll even change my vote if somethings gets done. DV8 2XL 03:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Simply needing improvement is not a reason to delete an article. Trollderella 05:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not up for deletion because it needs improvement - it's up for deletion because it violates Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information policy. Unless there is at minimum, a demonstration that someone cares enough to at least start addressing that issue, the article should go. DV8 2XL 09:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment Well at least Anville is willing to put their effort where their mouth is! Comming along nicely BTW. DV8 2XL 20:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, very nice article. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, and definitely don't merge. This is a great idea for an article. These kinds of lists of "... in fiction" mean that the original article about Schrodinger's cat, or whatever, don't get filled up with side material, and can be kept in focus, and the people who want to mention the matter in fiction or manga or whatever also have a place to do it. --DannyWilde 11:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Heep. Good point DannyWilde. Falls just on the 'keep' side of the borderline. (Previous unsigned comment by Herostratus 21:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC))
 * Keep. --HappyCamper 20:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I think it's in a decent state right now, but I may take a few more stabs at it.  Anville 20:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep, and definitely don't merge. The article now looks like something worth keeping - but worth keeping where it is. DV8 2XL 21:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The cat has been famous within the physics community for a number of years.  A certain amount of that fame has spread out into popular culture.  Anyone who stumbles across such an entry should have a central clearinghouse for similar encounters in other publications. Jtmichcock 04:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep if this article was smaller I would say Merge, but the Schrödinger's cat article is already quite long. -=# Amos E Wolfe talk #=- 13:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep article documents spread of what would otherwise be obscure into popular culture. If this is unacceptable to Wikipedia, then I would consider Wikipedia a dismal failure. Certainly more useful than List of fictional stores and List of fictional restaurants. WCFrancis 19:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge. In either case, I'd like to see the prose cut down a bit. &lt;font color=&quot;#663366&quot;&gt;Jacqui&lt;/font&gt; &#91;&#91;User_talk:Jacqui M Schedler&#124;&lt;sup&gt;★&lt;/sup&gt;]] 04:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep it's fine --TimPope 21:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.153.47 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-15 23:58:22 Unsigned comment moved from talk page.
 * Keep (and cleanup) per Anville way up there. -- Миборовский U 03:35, 18 November 2005 (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.