Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fomalhaut 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 merge to Fomalhaut#Etymology and cultural significance. Clear consensus that this article shouldn't remain. What content gets selectively merged is up to editorial discretion - it can be as much or as little as desired. Daniel (talk) 00:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fomalhaut in fiction

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

)

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

While some locations and concepts in fiction can be rescued (see

Stars_and_planetary_systems_in_fiction#Fomalhaut_(Alpha_Piscis_Austrini)

which is a cool idea but realistically, a giant indiscriminate ORish list that we will need to deal with at some point...).

Works checked: Brave new words the Oxford dictionary of science fiction (mentioned in a single quote), Encyclopedia Of Science Fiction (Library Movements) by Don DAmmassa (not mentioned), The Mammoth Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (not mentioned), The New encyclopedia of science fiction by Gunn, Jame (not mentioned), The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (mentioned in five articles in passing: [1]) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC) PS. I also checked the The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy which does not appear to mention the subject. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:07, 7 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} 04:57, 6 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} 04:57, 6 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} 04:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Stars_and_planetary_systems_in_fiction, for now, those entries about works which have articles and where Fomalhaut has a major role in the plot. From the looks of it, most of the current entries do not. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It doesn't seem difficult to find detailed sources such as A Research on Multiple Implications of Fomalhaut's Image in Feng Ge's Cang Hai. And the worst case would be merger to
Stars and planetary systems in fiction does not seem so sensible because the number of these is literally astronomical. Huge compendia and lists are unwieldy and unhelpful. It's better to have short, succinct articles with precise titles as these are easier to find and read on the mobile devices which our readership mostly prefers. Small Is Beautiful. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I'd say it's pretty difficult, if the best source you can find is a Chinese article of dubious reliability. Who is
WP:GOOGLETEST result of "1" that may not even be relevant to this topic. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC) Update: As far as I can tell with Google Translate, this is indeed an error; the topic of an animal - cat named "Beiluo Shimen" whose name was somehow (machine?) translated into Fomalhaut. That's what we get when people waste other's time with random google results of texts they don't even bother to read themselves. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
PS. A Chinese student of mine confirmed that the this is about a cat whose name can be translated as Fomalhaut (although given the work doesn't seem to have an official translation, it's anyone's guess how the name would be rendered by a translator anyway - character names are often not translated, after all...), but other than the name there is no connection the star. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I agree that this is not the easiest article to provide detailed references for, it can be done, as the existing references show. I think we're better to draw this to the attention of the relevant Wikiproject, and let them improve the article over time. RomanSpa (talk) 11:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:PRIMARY. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep some might not be able to be sourced but some should be able to be, and the parent article target is too large. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber What do you mean by "some"? Where is the policy justification for keeping this article in your sentence? I am missing it, somehow. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The policy-based opinion is that there are most likely sources - I am familiar with some of the items in the article and just because you can't find some sources on an entry-level compendium or two does not persuade me that they don't exist. Alot of popular culture items are poorly covered in accessible online sources. I'd also support a Merge to Fomalhaut#Etymology and cultural significance. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:NLIST. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Wikipedia:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is an essay (please don't insert an essay as if it were a policy), which was mainly penned by someone with a higher bar for notability/inclusion than me. As I said, just because it isn't in a few entry-level/broad sources doesn't mean that none exist. Unfortunately my hands are full at the moment so I don't have time to drop tools and go looking. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Are you saying "there must be sources" is a good argument? Anyway, if you prefer,
WP:INDEPENDENT (neither do references to primary works). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep or else merge into
Stars and planetary systems in fiction. Bullet points that have a link to an existing article on the topic more or less imply notability for that statement. I'd say if a bullet doesn't have an article that establishes notability for that topic, then it needs a reference or should be removed. Praemonitus (talk) 14:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to Fomalhaut#Etymology and cultural significance - While a few (but not many) of the specific examples may have reliable sources discussing them, I can't find any sources discussing the overall concept in depth, and so far none of have been brought forward here. Concerns about the size of the target article after merger are invalid, because the vast majority of the content here would be inappropriate to merge - only the actual notable works in which the star or its system played a significant role should actually be retained. The multitude of examples where its simply a single, non-notable location in a work of fiction, or worse, the many "It was mentioned once in this book!" examples should be removed, regardless of this article's fate. Rorshacma (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No reasonable grounds advanced for deletion. The fact that the subject is not covered in the nominator's favorite handful of reference works tells us virtually nothing about overall coverage of the subject. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES claim. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to the main article. The current article is the typical TVTropes nonsense. Independent notability of the topic has not been established. That these topics are hard to curate does not necessitate a split from the main article. If there is anything to be salvaged, a summary style prose section can be created. TTN (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fomalhaut. No significant coverage of the topic is currently represented on the article or has been raised in this discussion - many of the keep votes amount to
WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. I don't think there's anything of substance to merge, as the article is largely unsourced pop culture trivia. Waxworker (talk) 23:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as completely fails
WP:LISTCRUFT. Willing to change my vote if someone can show me an RS treating this as a grouping but I can't find anything. Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to WP:ATD, this does not seem like it merits a standalone article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Selective merge to
Stars and planetary systems in fiction.4meter4 (talk) 19:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to WP:NLIST. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:27, 19 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fomalhaut_in_fiction&oldid=1045320535"