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 no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 10:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dark matter in fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Indiscriminate compilation of miscellany and trivia. Because of the nature of the article's subject it cannot be made encyclopedic. Strong Delete Auspex1729 (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: A notable part of fiction. Joe Chill (talk) 15:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are some other things which are notable in fiction in exactly the same way as dark matter: trees, paper, iron, uranium, shoes, firearms, cats, etc. None of them warrants its own "X in fiction" article, and this shouldn't, either. Auspex1729 (talk) 15:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that the unrelevant stuff that you listed shouldn't have an article. You saying that this shouldn't have an article is just your opinion and not a fact. I think that this should have an article because it is a very important part of science fiction. Joe Chill (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Looks like serious listcruft to me. It appears to have been an attempt to get rid of the "Popular culture" section of the Dark matter article; but the cure for that kind of spam is to delete it, not to move it to its own space. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This page is just a list of trivia. Not encyclopedic. Triplestop x3 17:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unencyclopedic trivia. Mintrick (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 18:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• So, first this should be sourced per WP:V, which appears quite likely to be possible. Then, the decision we're faced with is whether to keep as a separate article or merge into Dark matter. per WP:IPC. Regardless, it appears to be keep material, with the cleanup caveat. Tagging for rescue. Jclemens (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you figure its keep materiel? There are four deletes and one keep. Keep argument is "notable part of fiction" which means that where its a notable apart of a fictional work, it should be mentioned in the article on that book/movie/whatever and linked to the Dark matter article - not at all that it should be kept, let alone rescued! Rescue some bio about an Asian musician, why don't you. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

we do not tabulate the results at the end of one day, but 7. DGG (talk) 03:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, you know who I am. Who are you talking to? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamentally, this is an "In Popular Culture" article on a hard-science topic. The editors who care about Dark Matter aren't going to want this there, which is probably why it's a separate entry here. Nevertheless, surely much/most of this can be sourced, since it's the interaction of a currently-hypothesized-as-factual type of matter in fiction. The "real world" applicability would be the evolution of fictional depictions of the topic as the theory has gained recognition. Jclemens (talk) 14:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat myself, I suppose. Are you talking to me? Because if you are, then I have no idea why yout hink I suddenly lost my mind. I know all this. I'm asking Jclemens what his "keep" rationale is. He hasn't responded. You have written a good bit, but it all seems very off-topic to me. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I gave a perfectly valid response, and didn't attack you in any way. If you'd like to refactor your rather belligerent statement into a question on what I've said, I'd be happy to clarify any particular concerns you might have. Jclemens (talk) 01:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep When notable cultural concepts are used as significant elements in notable fiction and other notable cultural phenomena, then a discussion of them is encyclopedic, and should be brought together, not scattered over multiple articles. That's what encyclopedias do,. All that is necessary is to show that the activity or artifact is used in a significant way, and this can be appropriately referenced to the fictional work directly. I am unaware of the concept of "serious listcruft" except as meaning IREALLLYDONTLIKEIT, which is seriously not an argument.. DGG (talk) 03:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to Dark matter Good God, this is serious listcruft, coming from someone who personally enjoys theoretical physics. This is also not an encyclopedic discussion of Dark matter in fiction but just a bunch of random tidbits taken out of their original context and put here through original research. An encyclopedic cleanup of this page would only leave the lede remaining, which would be suitable in the main Dark matter article. An encyclopedic article is supposed to have one topic, with an exploration of that topic being the main body of the article. An encyclopedic article shouldn't consist of nothing but random name-drops of everytime the subject has ever been mentioned in every single area of fiction known to man. A couple of prose paragraphs summing up this data in the main article is sufficient. We aren't an indiscriminate collection of information, and we don't need to list every single appearance of this subject in order to develop an encyclopedic understanding of it. Redirect this back to the main article and summarise the raw data there.ThemFromSpace 04:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listing the works in which the there occurs is appropriate, as it brings the themes together. The article can also be thought of a a navigational device, and one of the purpose of a navigational device is useful collocation of the material. The article does not attempt to list every occurance in fiction--that would be indiscriminate. But it discriminates in two ways: it lists the significant appearances in notable fiction. That's a single topic. In many cases in Wikipedia we do not fully explain a subject, but just present it. Not every article has to be a featured article. You are essentially objecting because it is not done as well as it might be done, and the solution to that is to improve it. AfD is not for articles that just need improvement. I am aware that you like physics, and for that matter so does the nom. I don't see the relevance to deletion, except possibly you object to the manner of its usual presentation in fiction as not sufficiently accurate & thus wish to remove information about the discussions that do occur? DGG (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listing minor appearances in notable works is not appropriate, as there is no consise subject to the article. You say that each of these is a significant appearance but that leads me to doubt that you've actually read the article. Most of these appearances are inconsequential to the element of fiction they belong in. Many are beyond trivial, such as "In the game series Boktai, dark matter is the substance that allows immortals and vampires to regenerate from any injury over time and must be purified from them in order to permanently destroy them." and "In the Star Trek: Voyager episode "One Small Step", the crew encounter a Dark Matter asteroid while observing a gravimetric spatial anomaly." Reading over the entire list, it is very hard to find information in this article which contributes to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject as a whole. While this article itself has a single topic, none of the subject matter is about that topic directly. We cannot present all the evidence we can find and expect the reader to draw a conclusion from the evidence; that is original research. We need third-party sources that draw the synthesis together for us, and until there is third-party evidence that the usage of dark matter in Star Trek, Ringworld's Children, Super Mario Galaxy, and all the other sub-subjects in this article is both related and notable than we cannot present an encyclopedic understanding of the subject. I have looked for this evidence and cannot find any. Unless it is presented than the article is nothing but original research. ThemFromSpace 03:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable and encyclopedic page that covers topic and provides useful links and disambiguation to relevant articles. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - have added some references, more could be added. Artw (talk) 23:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge Not quite as notable as black holes in fiction, but mentioned. There will be some secondary sourcing in sci-fi commentary somewhere, but (shock/horror) it might wait till someone has to visit a library. Could be merged too if size allows. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Very few of the works mentioned actually use "dark matter," in the scientific sense, but instead treat the phrase as magic words/a mantra to make plotting/writing/gaming/whatever easier to handle. Kind of like the way Stan Lee used semi-magic "transisters" (as he sometimes spelled the word) to power Iron Man's armor. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's an excellent reason why this WP:IPC article might be best not merged back into the Dark matter article, as the fictional use of dark matter remains a separate phenomenon from dark matter itself. Pretend for the sake of argument that dark matter didn't exist at all, and this were simply a fictional element. Would the usage across this diversity of fictional worlds merit an article on that usage? Of course it would. Now, why should an article on the usage of a term in science fiction be eliminated merely because the fictional element shares the name (and varying degrees of the characteristics with) of a real scientific topic? Jclemens (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge the relevant material into Dark matter. The only aspect of this page that's acceptable for an encyclopedia article is the lead, which isn't too bad, but doesn't indicate that you can make more than a stub out of this topic. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note Wikipedia:Merge and delete, i.e. if we merge anything, then we must keep the edit history intact per the GFDL. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Unbounded and unsourced list of I-spy trivia bound together by the new and novel concept that Dark matter composes a significant part of popular culture. --Allen3 ^talk 17:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  This list is discriminate (it has a clear inclusion criteria) and is hardly original and unsources (the fiction themselves are sources). Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. Jclemens (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added 3 RS references to the topic. Feel free to trim out any particular examples which cannot be sourced, but the article clearly has sufficient sourcing at this point to meet the WP:GNG. Jclemens (talk) 18:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect it and place the contents on the talk page of the main article to be sorted through and potentially included within the article. Such articles are useless repositories of trivial information. It would not be a bad idea for the main article to have a two paragraph section made up of examples, but an entire article made up of every trivial listing is pointless. TTN (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:N. The concept "Dark matter in fiction" has received coverage in at least one source[1]. WP:N asks for sources plural but I'm satisfied with this source as evidence the subject has been covered and then using the many documented instances of dark matter in fiction as secondary sources. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Why I have a feeling that when the article writes "Examples of..." means "All we could find"? -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article can be cleaned up and the fact that there are so many examples points to the notability of the topic. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Listcruft. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 07:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ITSCRUFT is not a valid reason for deletion. Please provide actual arguments specific to the subjects under discussion. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep For the same reasons the AFD for Black holes in fiction was kept. Showing how something real in science has been featured throughout notable workers of fiction over the years, is a perfectly reasonable article to have on Wikipedia. Dream Focus 15:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Week keep - Keep because it has potential to be referenced with reliable sources proving notability until the cows come home, week because it hasn't so far and is looking awfully listcruffy at the moment - Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 20:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And per Cabe, this article will be deleted next weekend. Also, delete as listcruft. --> RUL3R^{*flaming | *vandalism} 04:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've gone through all the entries, and flagged those where Dark matter isn't referenced in the wikilinked article with {{cn}}, and removed plenty more that didn't appear to be independently notable or didn't even assert that Dark matter was important to the plot. So, it's possible to simply delete the not-yet-referenced entries, but note that at this point I haven't even tried to search for external sources to verify whether dark matter is referenced in the original. Odds are, most of these can be substantiated. I've also gone through and redirected most of the fictional topics from dark matter to Dark matter in fiction, which leads to two things--first, it should substantially shortcut anyone adding IPC elements to dark matter, and second, if this is closed as delete, a redirect to Dark matter is appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 00:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.