Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supernovae 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 keep. In the sense of "not delete". There is consensus that this is no longer a deletion candidate after the TV Tropes content was removed and the article rewritten. There is disagreement about a possible merger, but that can be followed up in a merger discussion on the article talk page.  Sandstein  09:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Supernovae in fiction

 * – ( View AfD View log )

TVTropes laundry list of every minor usage in fiction. There are no sources establishing that the topic itself is independently notable outside of the context of its parent article. There is nothing necessitating coverage outside of the main article other than the typical lazy dumping of content. If the topic needs any coverage at all, it needs to be through a proper summary style section per MOS:POPCULT. TTN (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I dislike the stubbification of content where 0% of the original content is retained because it would have just been easier to put it in the main article rather than keep history which was literally a massive waste of time for everyone previously involved, but that's just a personal pet peeve. Regardless, we're no longer talking about the same article, so it's pointless to keep this up. Withdraw.


 * Delete WP:NLIST fails completely. -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 21:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep now Interesting outcome. Do some of the other list articles need to be converted to non-list encyclopedic analyses like this one? rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 23:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I would say so, yes. I did the same with Immortality in fiction (though that one wasn't brought to AfD), and I'm planning to do Black holes in fiction next. TompaDompa (talk) 05:00, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - There is pretty much no salvageable material here, as it is simply a list of almost entirely non-notable plot elements. There are very few reliable sources, and none of them actually discuss the overall concept that would help this list pass WP:LISTN, and simply confirm a few pieces of plot.  If any sources can actually be found that give some sort of analysis on the actual overall concept of how supernovae are used or depicted in fiction, then perhaps an additional section could be created on the main Supernova article discussing it, but this "list of times the word supernova was used" certainly would not be helpful to that.  Rorshacma (talk) 21:52, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY - If the article winds up remaining a stub, I still think it would be better to include the information in the main article, but that discussion does not need to be decided now. As far as this AFD goes, TompaDompa has once again completely rewritten a useless list of trivia into an acceptable prose stub, so deletion is no longer necessary.  Rorshacma (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - Largely unsourced pop culture trivia. The sources are on the article show that 'yes, there are supernovae in this work of fiction' but don't show that 'Supernovae in fiction' as a whole is notable. Waxworker (talk) 23:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like there are: 1, 2 Google books references treating supernovae in fiction as a class, and a couple of Google scholar findings that I will have to dig to access. Overall, while the list may need trimming, I'm seeing a reasonable case for keeping it as a standalone list as "supernovae in fiction" appears to be treated as a topic by multiple RS. Jclemens (talk) 00:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep This article has been completely overhauled by TompaDompa. None of the arguments for deletion fit to this new version any more. As yet it is only of stub length, but the secondary sources found by Jclemens above and TompaDompa in the article do discuss the overall concept, as Rorshacma requested, and show that the subject does fulfill WP:GNG. (I am assuming that sources refering to supernovae and novae in fiction both count, as these terms are used interchangeably in science-fiction, as is in turn attested by secondary sources.) I ask the nominator to withdraw the nomination in light of this new situation. Daranios (talk) 10:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with parts of the nomination: Listing every time X appears in fiction is what TV Tropes does, and we should get rid of articles like that on Wikipedia (in general, I quite agree with the essay WP:CARGO—fiction is not fact and collecting raw data does not produce analysis). However, just as with Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction, Articles for deletion/Earth in science fiction (2nd nomination), and Articles for deletion/Space stations and habitats in fiction, there is sufficient coverage in WP:Reliable sources to convert this into a proper, encyclopaedic prose article about the concept of supernovae in fiction. I have started the process of doing so. I also completely disagree with the suggestion that a "in popular culture" section be written in the main supernova article—if there isn't enough coverage to warrant a stand-alone article, there isn't enough for such a section either (and conversely: if there is enough to warrant a section, it's better to create a separate article). I would prefer outright deletion to merging this into Supernova (although I think deletion would be misguided as it would be way better to just write a prose article). TompaDompa (talk) 14:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Daranios. RomanSpa (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, an obvious case of WP:HEY. /Julle (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to Stars and planetary systems in fiction (Note: Stars in fiction redirects there). This is based on my source review for Supernovae/Supernova/Nova:
 * The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction aka http://sf-encyclopedia.com/search-results has no entry on this
 * Visual Encyclopedia of Science Fiction - Brian Ash - not in the index of concepts, some passing mentions in some entries
 * Brave new words the Oxford dictionary of science fiction by Jeff Prucher - has entry on term 'go nova' (p.80), 'go supernova' (p.81), but those are just brief notes, not SIGCOV analysis. No entry on supernova itself
 * Encyclopedia Of Science Fiction (Library Movements) by Don DAmmassa - no entry, some passing mentions in some entries
 * The Mammoth Encyclopedia of Science Fiction by Mann, George - no entry, some passing mentions in some entries. Has entry on 'Stars'.
 * The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy - same as above
 * The New encyclopedia of science fiction by Gunn, James E - no entry, some passing mentions in some entries
 * Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia - has entry on "Nova" (stellar phenomena, not some work)
 * The reason for merge rather than keep is that based on my review, there is no WP:SIGCOV of the concept of "Supernovas in fiction" outside one work. The new entry, now rewritten, is still based on few mentions in passing, and the only exception to go on is the one and a half-page entry in the last reviewed work. My interpretation of GNG is that we need at least two reliable, in-depth sources for something to be notable. All that said, the newly rewritten entry is well written and should not be deleted. Merging to the target article and redirecting this there should satisfy all policies. Ping all participants in the discussion: . --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  03:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. I didn't offer a bolded !vote above, and I don't think I have changed my position that there are multiple reasonable outcomes here. Jclemens (talk) 05:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Next to the "Nova" chapter in Science Fact and Science Fiction, we have the chapter "Stellar Evolution: Supernovas, Pulsars and Black Holes", pp. 38-43 in The Physics and Astronomy of Science Fiction. So split by three topics I'd assume there's ca. 2 pages on our subject. But let's take the time of a closer look: p. 38 bottom to p. 39 middle is the scientific background about supernovae neccessary; p. 39 middle to p. 42 top then gives usages, examples and implications of super/novas in sci-fi. So I think we have two in-depth secondary sources here without looking further into the other sources used by TompaDompa, which is enough for my part. Daranios (talk) 10:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I quite agree with ' assessment about there being sufficient coverage for a stand-alone article (but then I would, wouldn't I?). I think the suggestion to merge this to stars and planetary systems in fiction is misguided, since this content would seem very out of place there. It might be a good idea to create an article about different types of stars/astronomical objects in fiction (black holes, supernovae, neutron stars, and so on), but I'm not sure, and that should probably be discussed separately from this AfD. TompaDompa (talk) 04:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge to Stars and planetary systems in fiction Per Piotrus and WP:ATD.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.