Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Works of fiction set in 2034


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Works of fiction set in 2034

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I know this is part of a series, so the same may apply to all (future) years in this series, I have only looked at this one. I have now nominated all future years in the same vein:
 * Works of fiction set in 2015
 * Works of fiction set in 2016
 * Works of fiction set in 2017
 * Works of fiction set in 2018
 * Works of fiction set in 2019
 * Works of fiction set in 2020
 * Works of fiction set in 2021
 * Works of fiction set in 2022
 * Works of fiction set in 2023
 * Works of fiction set in 2024
 * Works of fiction set in 2025
 * Works of fiction set in 2026
 * Works of fiction set in 2027
 * Works of fiction set in 2028
 * Works of fiction set in 2029
 * Works of fiction set in 2030
 * Works of fiction set in 2031
 * Works of fiction set in 2032
 * Works of fiction set in 2033
 * Works of fiction set in 2035
 * Works of fiction set in 2061

There is no link between these works of fiction, the year 2034 is a random "near future" year which could have been 2035 or 2036 without any change to the works. The year 2034 is not a defining characteristic. "Works set in an alternate Earth where Hitler won WWII" would be a list of works with a clear, important (plot-defining) characteristic linking them. But being placed in the same future year? Or worse, looking at Works of fiction set in 2035, just having some plot element happening in that year? These are lists of basically unrelated trivia. Fram (talk) 09:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 12:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 12:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 12:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Merge to the articles on their respective years. That is, have a 2028 in fiction section in the article 2028 and merge Works of fiction set in 2028 into Khemehekis (talk) 05:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Also expand to whole series of these (from the makeshift navbox at top). We have categories "XXXX in fiction" that does this job just fine, as these lists are not providing any commentary about the year and just serve to list the works. --M ASEM  (t) 12:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll expand this nomination to include all future years (I can imagine that different arguments apply to fiction set in the past...). Fram (talk) 13:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete this entire article scheme: the future articles named here, and the rest as found at Works of fiction by year (and that parent article). This is a trivial intersection better handled by categories (if at all), and which presents a litany of problems with inclusion and maintenance. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep (or merge back into year articles). It's clearly inappropriate as categories, per WP:CATDEF.  I believe the claim that works of fiction are inappropriate in year articles was a very weak consensus, and might be revisited.  (I must admit the same applies to "Category:Establishments in yyyy"....)  I'm not going to emphasize WP:RETAIN, as I consider that a weak argument, but it is an argument.  The decision of whether a work of fiction should be included needs more specific guidelines, but so do the criteria for factual events which appear in year articles.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Um, RETAIN is about keeping one variation of English (e.g. Australian English or British English) in an article. I don't see the relevance here. And whether the cats should exist or not is a separate discussion, keeping the lists or deleting should not be dependent on the existence or fate of the cats. Fram (talk) 18:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * My mistake, it was WP:PRESERVE. I should know better than to trust guidelines pointed to by the Kalamazoo Kid.  It's still not a good argument, but it is an argument based on policy.   — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * But the info that X or Y is set in 2034 (or whatever year) is not lost, it is mentioned in the article about X or about Y. The bringing together of the information on one page is undone, but that is because it is not a notable combined topic. But no information is actually lost or removed from Wikipedia in this case. Fram (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Users can merge into years if they feel like it, but I don't consider it important. As the nominator has fairly pointed out, almost all future settings are vague and hypothetical, unlike historical settings. Theoretically, I'd consider keeping near-future categories in order to allow for works that posit specific counterfactuals (eg. "Three years into Mitt Romney's first term...") but it might be too hard to enforce and regardless, doesn't seem to be the case for any of the works currently on the lists for the next few years. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. A bit too indiscriminate.  Although somewhat better than "fictional works that feature a protagonist named Joe", these works are still very loosely connected to each other through what is not a defining feature of the work itself.  An encyclopedic article could be written about near future settings, and I'm slightly surprised that we don't have one.  Notable examples could be listed and discussed there. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's too WP:SYNTHy and too WP:INUNIVERSEy. Bondegezou (talk) 10:42, 30 September 2014 (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.