Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space colonization in popular culture


 * 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. --Core desat 06:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Space colonization in popular culture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Page contains an open-ended list with no defined criteria for inclusion. Content substantially duplicates that of the Astronomical locations in fiction suite of pages. RandomCritic 17:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. If there is anything to be said about this topic it can be said in Science fiction or an appropriate sub-page.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 18:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Laundry-list of uncited, context-free examples. --Eyrian 20:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The only shame is that a lot of editors have spent a lot of time in good faith on this. What a shame it wasn't caught and slated for deletion earlier, to save their time. A great example of why 'X in popular fiction' ought to ring loud alarm bells as an article title. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk to me)  21:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A lot of editors have spent a lot of time on this? I must be looking at a different list, all I see is a relatively small list with little content other than links to other articles. It was compiled by about a dozen editors in less than 50 edits. I have seen articles deleted that were started in 2001 and had over 5000 edits. This is nothing. 172.189.19.219 22:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. You'd have to include a majority of science fiction novels and films! Clarityfiend 21:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per nom. Looks like list cruft.--Bryson 21:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Random; author should consider editing the articles that are referred to, since this duplicates other info. Mandsford 22:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per everything said above. —  Wen li  22:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - per Eyrian. This could be an article; but this isn't even the hollow shell of what it needs to be in order to be included.  --Haemo 00:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 10:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 10:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete because first, this is a list that shows no reasonable boundaries. Science fiction is filled with an overwhelming number of stories based on space colonization.  This article is basically a list of indiscriminate trivia in disguise.  Per directory standards, most of the entries are not famous because they have a mention of the concept.  Per notability standards, the topic is supposed to be explored through "significant coverage" that address the subject of space colonization in popular culture directly, instead of extracting it from the firsthand observations of the editors themselves. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Kindly note: "Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles." The list is deletable, but not because it violates WP:OR (there's virtually no research at all, let alone OR) or WP:NOTE (the topic of space colonization is certainly notable); it's deletable because it's not the list it claims to be (it is in fact "list of random space stories somebody liked"), and the information it should convey could be easily contained with the Space colonization article, IMHO. RandomCritic 17:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * These reasons are good, too. I am not opposed to prose articles that depict a certain entity or concept in popular culture, based on the significant coverage of secondary sources.  Obviously, though, this article does not attempt to do that at all.  It's just a list of trivia.  I would have no problem with attributable sources describing most depictions of space colonization as realistic or unrealistic or whatever common traits have been seen by that independent perspective. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:00, 22 June 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.