Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neptune in fiction

Neptune 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)

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)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:23, 4 November 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} 10:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Keep This is clearly not a useless article. I don't understand the deletion critieria anymore. Leanne Sepulveda (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]