The result was Withdrawn (article rewritten and kept).. Closing the discission I started. Article has been TNTed and rewritten, addressing my initial concerns, no delete votes remain, the consensus is to keep the new version. (non-admin closure) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
It is plausible this could be rewritten into something, BUT what we have here likely needs a WP:TNT treatment. The article is an unreferenced list of random works in which Neptune appears in; in many, it plays a minor role in the background. Having rewritten some similar articles from scratch ( Earth in science fiction), IMHO nothing here is worth salvaging, as the examples here, while "correct", don't help establish notability of the subject, and only a few would survive if this is rewritten (based on which examples are repeated in RS). Given that SF Encyclopedia's entry for Neptune is a redirect to https://sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/outer_planets (which has a paragraph on Neptune), the best alternative to outright hard deletion I can think of would be a redirect to Solar System in fiction (a terrible, unreferenced article but one that is likely notable, as a parent article to Foo planet in fiction, a category which contains several stand-alone notable topics - Earth, Moon, Venus and Mars, for example; I intend to work on this one day). Anyway, coming back here - unless someone can find better sources and rewrite this, this should be deleted and redirected (and if anyone wants to rewrite it, I'd suggest starting something from scratch in a section at the "solar system in fiction" anyway, rather than trying to deal with this list, 99% if not 100% of which probably needs to go). Ps. I have reviewed the other SF encyclopedias, most do not have an entry on Neptune or significant discussion. Greenwood has a chapter on "Jupiter and the Outer Planets" with a very short paragraph mentioning Neptune: [1]. There is one exception: "Science Fact and Science Fiction" has a half-page four-paragraph dedicated entry. So there is scope for rewriting this into a short entry although notability is borderline (one source is not enough for GNG's requirement of multiple sources, IMHO, but on the other hand, we have the unwritten rule of thumb that a topic that has an entry in a specialized encyclopedia probably merits one in ours) - but I stand by my view that we need to start with a WP:TNT. I will further volunteer to rewrite this myself since I have access to all the sources, but I don't want to be bogged down with the current gunk. If I have time to start the rewrite before this AfD concludes I'll link my draft here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Delete The nominator has done a better job than me at finding sources as I couldn’t find any treating this as a topic. Sources presented here are not significant so this fails
WP:GNG as well as
WP:LISTN. Information currently presented is
WP:SYNTH.
Vladimir.copic (
talk) 12:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Some of the sources have combined encyclopaedia entries for the planetsand your statements about the state of the Saturn and Jupiter articles contradict
in order to create such an article we would need to have proper content about the other three planets. The Urunus and Saturn articles are currently barely sourced and, if sources were added, they would just be the same ones (even the same page numbers) as the Neptune article. The Saturn article only sources examples except one to The Routledge Companion to Science Fiction. I looked this up and again it references an example used in a paragraph about imagining life on other worlds (this book never mentions Neptune). You have done a great job tidying this up. The best way to honour and retain this is to put it in the same context of 'outer planets'. Maybe a merge is not a discussion for here but without this I will have to stick with delete as I can't see the sigcov. At the moment it's like using sources on the Three Little Pigs to justify an article about the pig who made his house with bricks. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 00:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.TompaDompa ( talk) 00:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn (article rewritten and kept).. Closing the discission I started. Article has been TNTed and rewritten, addressing my initial concerns, no delete votes remain, the consensus is to keep the new version. (non-admin closure) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
It is plausible this could be rewritten into something, BUT what we have here likely needs a WP:TNT treatment. The article is an unreferenced list of random works in which Neptune appears in; in many, it plays a minor role in the background. Having rewritten some similar articles from scratch ( Earth in science fiction), IMHO nothing here is worth salvaging, as the examples here, while "correct", don't help establish notability of the subject, and only a few would survive if this is rewritten (based on which examples are repeated in RS). Given that SF Encyclopedia's entry for Neptune is a redirect to https://sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/outer_planets (which has a paragraph on Neptune), the best alternative to outright hard deletion I can think of would be a redirect to Solar System in fiction (a terrible, unreferenced article but one that is likely notable, as a parent article to Foo planet in fiction, a category which contains several stand-alone notable topics - Earth, Moon, Venus and Mars, for example; I intend to work on this one day). Anyway, coming back here - unless someone can find better sources and rewrite this, this should be deleted and redirected (and if anyone wants to rewrite it, I'd suggest starting something from scratch in a section at the "solar system in fiction" anyway, rather than trying to deal with this list, 99% if not 100% of which probably needs to go). Ps. I have reviewed the other SF encyclopedias, most do not have an entry on Neptune or significant discussion. Greenwood has a chapter on "Jupiter and the Outer Planets" with a very short paragraph mentioning Neptune: [1]. There is one exception: "Science Fact and Science Fiction" has a half-page four-paragraph dedicated entry. So there is scope for rewriting this into a short entry although notability is borderline (one source is not enough for GNG's requirement of multiple sources, IMHO, but on the other hand, we have the unwritten rule of thumb that a topic that has an entry in a specialized encyclopedia probably merits one in ours) - but I stand by my view that we need to start with a WP:TNT. I will further volunteer to rewrite this myself since I have access to all the sources, but I don't want to be bogged down with the current gunk. If I have time to start the rewrite before this AfD concludes I'll link my draft here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Delete The nominator has done a better job than me at finding sources as I couldn’t find any treating this as a topic. Sources presented here are not significant so this fails
WP:GNG as well as
WP:LISTN. Information currently presented is
WP:SYNTH.
Vladimir.copic (
talk) 12:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Some of the sources have combined encyclopaedia entries for the planetsand your statements about the state of the Saturn and Jupiter articles contradict
in order to create such an article we would need to have proper content about the other three planets. The Urunus and Saturn articles are currently barely sourced and, if sources were added, they would just be the same ones (even the same page numbers) as the Neptune article. The Saturn article only sources examples except one to The Routledge Companion to Science Fiction. I looked this up and again it references an example used in a paragraph about imagining life on other worlds (this book never mentions Neptune). You have done a great job tidying this up. The best way to honour and retain this is to put it in the same context of 'outer planets'. Maybe a merge is not a discussion for here but without this I will have to stick with delete as I can't see the sigcov. At the moment it's like using sources on the Three Little Pigs to justify an article about the pig who made his house with bricks. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 00:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.TompaDompa ( talk) 00:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)