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 merge to Trans-Neptunian object#In fiction. Sandstein 11:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trans-Neptunian objects in fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Oh boy. In the process of cleaning up Template:Astronomical locations in fiction, this probably is the most bizarre entry. The concept is super niche and not mentioned in any reliable source; this (tiny) list that fails WP:GNG/WP:LIST is also very poorly referenced (to primary sources anyway). Needles to say, the term Trans-Neptunian not only does not have its own entry in any reference work on SF (see below for what I reviewed), but is not even mentioned in any of them, outside of a single passing sentence in "Science fact and science fiction an encyclopedia by Brian Stableford"...

Reviewed works:

The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction aka http://sf-encyclopedia.com/search-results

Visual Encyclopedia of Science Fiction - Brian Ash (index search only)

Brave new words the Oxford dictionary of science fiction by Jeff Prucher

Encyclopedia Of Science Fiction (Library Movements) by Don DAmmassa

The Mammoth Encyclopedia of Science Fiction by Mann, George

The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy (index search only)

The New encyclopedia of science fiction by Gunn, James E

Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia by Brian Stableford

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A part of me wishes otherwise, but the list doesn't meet any of our criteria to exist. Further, it doesn't make sense; if we want an article to cover fictional sub-planetary objects within the Sol system, there is no reason why we should restrict ourselves to trans-neptunian ones, as it is unlikely the list would be sufficiently large to need a split. The article also seems to entirely consist of OR, with this including both the elements on the list, and the information provided with them. With all that said, I will note that I don't consider the search for the name to be conclusive; there is no reason why coverage of this topic or a sufficiently similar one has to be under that name, and I would actually be surprised if it was. BilledMammal (talk) 08:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Redirect: I don't believe the information is appropriately sourced for a merger, but no reason why we can't redirect this to Solar System in fiction. BilledMammal (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/merge The nomination tells plainly that it's engaged in cleanup but, per WP:NOTCLEANUP, this not the purpose of AfD. In constructing the template in question, the earlier editors obviously decided on a scheme of dividing up the solar system, working outwards from the sun. This naturally then takes you to Pluto, the Kuiper belt, Oort cloud and the other outer reaches. If the nominator has some better scheme then they should present it fully, rather than selectively trying to knock out pieces of the whole. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Solar System in fiction as a WP:ATD. This can easily fit within that purview._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Andrew Davidson makes a good point. Running dragnets through the Wikipedia looking for perfectly good articles based on careful, organized, and dedicated volunteer work to delete is probably not a good way for this project to move forward. It's not really what AfD is supposed to be used for. It's discouraging to editors who create articles like this, also. Not a super great approach to making encyclopedias, in my opinion.

On the merits, I do note that we have an article Trans-Neptunian object. It is a wide-spread and notable concept in planetary astronomy. Googling "trans-neptunian" brings about 316,00 results. There are scads of scientific books with "Trans-Neptunian" in their title. "trans neptunian objects" brings up 10,400 results in google scholar.

And naturally it's used a lot in science fiction too. We would expect that, but we know it for sure because somebody did the work of making this article and collecting some instances of this. Thank you, article creators, good work! It's not the biggest article, but it's big enough. It's not much ref'd, but after all the works themselves are the refs, I think that's pretty much how it works for summaries of films and books and all.

Taken together, this indicates that of course the subject is notable and is worthwhile having an article on. The rest is details. We can expand the article and add more refs in the fullness of time. pictures, infoboxes, so forth. But not if the article is destroyed. Right?

Whatever happens to this one article happens, but closer, on the meta-issue, pattern issue...there is a lot I could say, but I better not. I'll have to leave that to you, administrator. There's a lot going on here. What I did say I tried to be walk the line of being both straightforward and polite, but I guess I failed and nominator stood on his rights and asked me to refactor (his prerogative, and fine). So I have. Herostratus (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Trans-Neptunian object#In fiction (with a redirect hatnote to Pluto in fiction). As far as I can see, only the first two entries in the Literature section qualify as more than minor plot elements. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to "Solar System in fiction" - per BilledMammal. This topic does not appear to have gained any coverage and keep votes are neither policy-based nor particularly civil. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect as suggested by several. User:Piotrus mades a compelling and uncontested case this topic is not discussed (as a subject matter) in what one would normally consider the most reliable reference sources in this narrow field of study. That pretty much settles it. Sources may exist in literary review and popular culture media discussing (or even listing) examples of Trans-Neptunian objects or concepts in fiction. I'm largely unsympathetic to any persuasion wikipedians should make deletion decisions based on what previous template editors decided, but do agree there should be a place for sourced material. BusterD (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Light Merge to Trans-Neptunian object#In fiction - There is very little to actually merge, since the sourcing being used here is almost non-existent, and many of the examples are not really notable examples of Trans-Neptunian objects playing a substantial role in a notable piece of fiction. But, as Clarityfiend stated, a couple of the entries do seem to be major enough instances to mention, and the main Trans-Neptunian object article makes more sense to me as the target than the more general Solar System in fiction. Regardless of which target is chosen for the Redirect/Merge, though, the fact remains that the topic in question fails WP:LISTN and should not exist as an independent list article. Rorshacma (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2021 (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.