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 close. This is now a completely different text than the one being nominated and discussed (early in this discussion). If anyone has objections to the current state of the article, it would have to be renominated again. Geschichte (talk) 11:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Earth in science fiction[edit]

Earth in science 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)

The page is an indiscriminate collection of various forms of media presenting the extremely broad subject of "Earth" as it appears in the extremely broad category of science fiction. Furthermore, most of the text is largely copied straight from plot descriptions and summaries. This article is an example of what Wikipedia is not. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 22:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 03:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 03:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 03:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 03:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Without secondary sources providing an analytical framework, it faces a problem: Where it is not wp:indiscriminate it is wp:synth, and where not wp:synth, it is wp:indiscriminate. It's a really interesting topic, though. It's just that it's not Wikipedia's role to invent a subfield of literary research.OsFish (talk) 04:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC) [reply]

• Weak Keep (strengthening if improvements continue) (changed vote) per WP:Hey. In my opinion, sources have been found to support a general article on this concept as well as organise it for the integration of other material that minimises OR risk, so long as it is OK per policy to achieve notability through tertiary sources (and if I am right in understanding the two encyclopedias cited should be considered tertiary). WP:GNG policy specifies secondary sources, but I don't see why encyclopedias wouldn't establish notability.OsFish (talk) 04:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Idle comment Others !voting have also remarked this looks like a notable topic except for the lack of secondary sources offered. I had a look on google scholar for various permutations of the subject such as "depiction/representation/portrayal of (the)(planet) Earth in science fiction" and found nothing. I'm very surprised. If anyone knows anyone looking for a career-establishing literature PhD topic... OsFish (talk) 08:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I was hoping for something in the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, for example, which often swerves into literary criticism, but nothing. /Julle (talk) 10:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Right, nothing for plain old Earth. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Without the abovementioned secondary sources providing an analytical framework, its simply OR. With it, how does it avoid being an essay? It is an interesting topic. I'm no great scifi readers, but I disagree with the lede. Dune, the Foundation trilogy...TheLongTone (talk) 14:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The lede say "An overwhelming majority of fiction is set on or features the Earth. However, authors of speculative fiction..." (emphasis mine). While clearly unsourced, I don't think it's false nor contradicted by Asimov or Herbert. pburka (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. I don't like the overwhelmingly without properly collated stats. It's all about sourcing (lack of).TheLongTone (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheLongTone: And now this statement is sourced. Daranios (talk) 10:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as indiscriminate. A sizable percentage of science fiction is set on Earth. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per the comments by OsFish. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 16:09, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, with no prejudice against re-creation of the article subject as such. I think "Earth in science fiction" could be a potential article, quoting sources talking about how it has been generally portrayed and common themes, if such are to be found. There are no such sources quoted. Most of the general content is unsourced, or refers to specific depictions. The long list of examples where Earth just happens to be mentioned makes no sense – a lot of science fiction somehow includes Earth. /Julle (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TNT — essentially all unreferenced WP:OR and WP:IPC failures. Keep !voters in the previous AfD did not provide sources that prove notability. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:06, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm a little shocked that it wasn't deleted when I nominated it in 2017 but that was probably due to lack of participation. It's still equally as problematically indiscriminate._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:32, 11 July 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} 02:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. While the current article is WP:OR coupled with an indiscrimiante list, and probably qualifies for WP:TNT, I did find a source for the general analysis, The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy (Gary Westfahl). It has two and half pages about Earth (and a dedicated entry to it), at [1] (p.226-228). Sadly there is no entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, The Mammoth Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (George Mann), Encyclopedia Of Science Fiction (Don D'Ammassa), 'The New Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (Jame E. Gunn), and The Encyclopedia of Fantasy (Clute and Grant). Anyway, we have one source but GNG requires multiple; that said it is an encyclopedia, so it's probably is enough? Sadly I can't see page 228, only 226-227, so I am hampered in my ability to rescue this using even this one source :( Ping User:Daranios, User:Toughpigs. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That entry in the Greenwood encyclopedia (judging by 227-228) is pretty much the sort of thing I expected/hoped to find to support notability. The thing is, WP:GNG specifies secondary sources as key for notability. Encyclopedias are tertiary. There's no explanation in WP:GNG as to why tertiary would not count towards notability and it doesn't make immediate sense to me. Of course, it's only one source, and that isn't really enough. But would two or more encyclopedia entries be OK? Also, is it worth looking for sources that cite that entry in Greenwood? OsFish (talk) 09:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @OsFish In my experience, in practice, tertiary sources are often sufficient for establishing notability - and this is something worth discussing at WT:GNG. In particular, coverage in specialized encyclopedias like the ones I mentioned above is never, in my experience, disputed as insufficient, even if it is all we have. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - possible second source Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia By Brian Stableford (2006, Taylor & Francis, ISBN 9781135923747) has an entry on Earth. But I can't see it from Google books. Is there anywhere we can appeal for people who might have it? OsFish (talk) 09:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Great finds Piotrus (though it's a shame we cannot see the last page and what sources possibly are used there) and OsFish! I think together the establish notablity. Here is a version of Science Fact and Science Fiction where (I hope every)one can view the article about Earth. It's a good two pages of small print (p. 137-139). About half of that contains historical facts and old examples where there is no clear disctinction between science fiction and philosophical speculation about scientific issues. The other half fits to our topic. Both sources support some parts of the common themes as well as more prominent examples like The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, showing that the current content, while in need of trimming and sourcing, is not without worth. They also have nice potential additions not yet covered like the Hollow Earth concept, or "A planet is too large, and its lifetime too long, to be comfortably accommodated within fiction as a topic in its own right, although that has not prevented the production of such panoramic overviews of Earth as those contained in...". And then there are more secondary sources that deal with smaller aspects of the topic, like Sith, Slayers, Stargates & Cyborgs, which talks about the alien invasion and anthropocentric aspects, or Heroes, Monsters and Values: Science Fiction Films of the 1970s, which discusses the recurring trope of an alien visiting Earth as a messiah figure.
  

So I ask all Delete voters (and the closer) to take these newly-come-to-light sources into account for their decision. Daranios (talk) 10:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone is willing to immediately totally rewrite the article, I still support deletion per WP:TNT and WP:REDLINK. That will give people more impetus to write a new article that is better._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm I think this has been just done (TNT and rewrite without deletion). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've started rewriting the article basically from scratch based on the sources discovered during the course of the AfD. TompaDompa (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• As promised, I will change my !vote to keep if the content in the page rises above something that is better off redirected, per WP:HEY, so I will keep watch on the article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this new version of the page. pburka (talk) 14:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the current version, which is effectively the WP:TNT version, as 99% of old OR content is gone, and the new version is now properly referenced. I think we can use the two sources found and de stub it too, maybe DYK it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Participants may be interested in the discussion I started at WT:GNG, inspired by this case: Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Tertiary_sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The page is now a promising work-in-progress and so our policy WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Further work should not be disrupted by the chilling effect of impending deletion. See also WP:HEY. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Thank you for the work TompaDompa. Asked to discuss the revised version, I unsurprsingly would be happy to see it kept and further expanded. It no longer has the major issues brought forth against it by the nominator and deletion voters. Daranios (talk) 10:40, 13 July 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.