Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sirius 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 Keep. Although fairly evenly split there is no clear consensus to delete, hence it stays. There are also good arguments that it can be cleaned up and significantly improved. JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 21:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sirius in fiction

Sirius in fiction (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Long list of trivial references (some even admit to being passing mentions), unacceptable per WP:NOT#TRIVIA. All genuine cultural significance is well covered by the main article. Eyrian 14:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This is an important list of culturally significant references to the star Sirius in works of fiction, not trivial at all. Lists of related subjects are an important part of Wikipedia; attempts to "purify" or "cleanse" Wikipedia of them amount to a dangerously obsessive type of vandalism. RandomCritic 14:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• What "cultural significance" might that be (other than as an easily recognized star name for lazy science fiction writers to reach for) and where are the actual discussions of said "cultural significance"? --Calton | Talk 14:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. --SkyWalker 14:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Another collection of random bullet points of entries in the "Spot the Word in the Video Game/Book/TV Show/Movie/Comic Book I Just Saw the Other Day" game. --Calton | Talk 14:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This rationale is false. First, the entries are not at all random; second, the inclusion of a reference in this list depends upon the significant appearance of the star in the plot of the work of fiction referenced, not the mere appearance of the word. RandomCritic 14:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Name one that is significant. Perhaps "Rama (1989-1993) series of novels by Arthur C. Clarke and Gentry Lee. One of the Raman vessels leaves the Solar System for a node in the Sirius system."? Or "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (1979) series by Douglas Adams. The Sirius Cybernetics Corporation is a fictional company.", where little more than the name is used? As I've said, all the real cultural impact is covered in the main article. Purging the trivia leaves an empty article. --Eyrian 14:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I think they are all significant. Most of them are science fictional references to planets in the Sirius system. The word "trivia" is being abused by nominator to mean no more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Something is not trivial simply because it offends somebody's aesthetic sense.RandomCritic 14:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That's simply wrong. These things have no bearing on Sirius the star. They aren't a part of popular perception, nor do they have significant cultural impact. They are minute, insignificant, inconsequential details, which tell us nothing about the star's (well communicated, in the main article) cultural importance. --Eyrian 15:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That the references mentioned are "insignificant and inconsequential" is, in the first place, an opinion of the nominator which he has not troubled to demonstrate (insofar as it is demonstrable); and, in the second place, it is quite false. Let's consider some of the examples:

• Lucky Starr series: The antagonism of the Sirians to the humans of the Solar System is the key connecting theme of the whole series. The fact that they live in the Sirian, as part of the first wave of human expansion, is a central plot point.
• The Starlight Barking: The mythological relationship between Sirius and dogs, as seen through the personification of the star itself as a dog, is central to the plot.
• Wasp (novel): The conflict between the Sirian Empire and Terra is basic to the whole novel.
• Dogsbody (novel): The entire book turns around the embodiment of Sirius in canine form.
• Children of the Dog Star: Entirely focused on contacts between Earth and Sirius.

To claim that these works have no "significant cultural impact" is preposterous; to say that whole stories that revolve around Sirius "have no bearing on Sirius the star" and are "minute, insignificant, inconsequential details", is -- like this nomination -- simply not serious. No pun intended. RandomCritic 20:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Entities named for the star that are important to a work of fiction does not translate to the work of fiction being important to the star. --Eyrian 20:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The works of fiction named appear to feature the star, not entities named for the star. Or are you concerned that the work of fiction should have a direct effect on the stellar body in some way? That would seem a bit of a stretch. Artw 20:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Not the physical star, clearly. But the cultural perception needs to have a general change. These examples most certainly do not do that. --Eyrian 20:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. Children of the Dog Star certainly had an effect on me as a kid, being the way I first heard that there was anything remotely unusual or spooky about Sirius. Artw 20:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so everything that affects at least one person's perception of something should be in the corresponding article? Verifiability be damned? I see. --Eyrian 20:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the argument known as WP:APATHY, or perhaps it should be WP:INEVERHEARDOFIT. It's not a valid argument. These are widely sold, widely known works of art, and of course they have a cultural impact. The notability criteria are more than met. RandomCritic 20:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not questioning their notability; those aren't the articles nominated for deletion. The question in whether there is anything about Sirius in fiction that is constructed from secondary sources, rather than an assortment of primary ones. --Eyrian 20:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

In general or on a case by case basis? Artw 21:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it did win a pretty major award, so I expect other people watched it too. It's pretty notable, and I don't see a WP:V issue at all - possibly you are letting your general dislike of any reference to fiction get in the way of good judgement here? Artw 20:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The use of Sirius in fiction goes back to the True Story by Lucian of Samosata. Much of this material is not in fact "trivial", and if it contains matters thought to be so, that's solved by editing, not by deletion. Much of this material could probably be merged back into the article in chief about Sirius, or to the article on Dog Days, which probably deserves to be more conspicuous in the article about the star itself. Until that happens, this should stay. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep article is in a bad way, very listcrufty, but the topic itself is probably notable and I'm sure the article was created as flypaper to protect Sirius from cruft a spinout per WP:SUMMARY. It needs to be rewritten rather than deleted. Eleland 15:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per list of loosely associated items. Any minor mention in a fictional work would warrant inclusion into this list and WP is not the place to come and document every time you see _____ in a tv show/movie/book. Corpx 16:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - directory of non-associated items based solely on the coincidence of name. No better than the List of people named John. Otto4711 16:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This criticism is absolutely false, and is either in bad faith, or is based on not even bothering to look at the page. Nothing is on the page that does not refer to the star Sirius.RandomCritic 20:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• With all due respect, I'm getting pretty damn tired of your bogus half-assed accusations. I did look at the page, and it's nothing but a list of things that happen be named or mention "Sirius." There is nothing that shows the things are related to each other. There is nothing that indicates that the people who picked the name "Sirius" were doing so because of its associations with other things on the list or that the people were even aware of the other things on the list. It's a list of "hey look, something called 'Sirius,' let me get to my computer and add it like it means something!" junk that suffers from the same problem as so many other of these trivia lists. The existence of Thing A that shares a name or an element with Thing B doesn't mean that Thing A and Thing B have any relationship to each other and these repeated claims that they do are nothing but original research. Otto4711 21:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Once again, all the items on the list refer to the star Sirius and not "things that happen to be named Sirius". It is very, very bad to try to justify a deletion based on a false characterization of the page. RandomCritic 21:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Once again, the fact that a handful of random independent writers all happened to pick the same name for use in their fiction doesn't mean that the things bear any relation to each other. It is very, very bad to argue to keep an article that is nothing but trivia and OR by ignoring the crux of the arguments against it. Otto4711 22:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Have to agree with RandomCritic - you're mischaracterising the article. Artw 22:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Really. Where is the material in the article that isn't just a list of things called "Sirius"? Where are the reliable sources that establish that there is a relationship between these various items past the use of the name? I'm always happy to consider sources but where are they? Otto4711 22:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

On the article being just a list of " things called sirius" - plainly it isn't. Have you even read the article? I think perhaps you are being deliberately obtuse here.

On sources - possibly you should follow the links if you want to find them? Artw 00:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Sirius features majory in a number of important works, some covered here, some that can be added. Artw 16:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

On the article being just a list - plainly it is, as there is nothing to the article but a list of things called "Sirius." On sources, where are the ones that indicate that the subject of "Sirius in fiction" has been the subject of reliable sources? There don't appear to be any in the article. Otto4711 06:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Dumping ground for trivial notations. Facts in fiction works are not inherently notable. MarkinBoston 16:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, while I know this can only be a magnet for partisan discussions of "I Do/Don't like it," wikipedia is not the place for trivia dumps, no matter how many people assert that a single mention of a single word in a marginally noteworthy bit of cultural product is "inherently notable."-Apollo58 17:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:FIVE, this is yet another list of loosely related trivia disguised as an encyclopedia article. Burntsauce 18:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - This is just a list. It doesn't say why the authors chose Sirius - proximity to Earth? Likelihood of it actually supporting Earthlike planets? It just sounded good? It's not like golden age SF that put warlike people on Mars because of its long association with gods of war - it's just a recognisable star name, and most of those books could search-and-replace the name and not be significantly altered.--Jamoche 22:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Generally, good fiction does not need, nor include, a statement from the author as to why they chose the subject. Nor do I get the statement that this is a list of "things called Sirius"... the idea appears to be books, films, etc. that reference the well-known star Sirius and the inevitable planets that would have to exist in order to make it a decent setting for a science fiction story. Although it could be merged back into the main article-- I mean, how much do we actually know about the Dog Star?-- the existence of this article does not pose any Serious problems. Mandsford 00:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Fiction doesn't need to say why it uses a term, no, but WP lists do need some reason to put things in a list beyond them all having the same name. --Jamoche 00:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Interesting stuff, the kind of aggregation of disparate things that could probably only happen on Wikipedia. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 16:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per Calton, and most of the keep votes are of the ilk of "this is interesting" or "it's not hurting anyone", which is not a reason to keep an article. Dannycali 16:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a violation of WP:NOT#INFO. The article is populated with trivial mentions of the star Sirius, instances of the mere use of the word "Sirius," or fictional counterparts to the star "Sirius," as others have pointed out, and it does not accomplish what it should: to prove the importance of Sirius in fiction, and what makes it notable. Without reliable, secondary sources that prove said notability, this article is just a laundry list. My favorite example of "bzuh?" from this article is Sirius' connection to Tolkien's "The Silmarillion" -- "Sirius is called Helluin by the Elves." Yes, that's what it says, and, no, it isn't just me not liking it; it's me pointing out its non-notability, superfluousness, and trivial state, along with 99% of this article. Cleaning it up will not help matters either, I'm afraid, since once indiscriminate material is removed, the article will have two sentences left. María (críticame) 18:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup. I agree with Eleland that topic itself is notable and is a useful spinout per WP:SUMMARY. Although some items are trivia, others are not, as explained by RandomCritic and Artw. Although it would be nice to have the article pruned and expanded with prose, an article should not be deleted merely because it is badly written.-Fagles 20:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Indeed. I think that something like Mars in fiction should be our goal. The article as it stands is pretty far from that, but it is acheivable. Artw 21:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    • It's not far at all. The entries there are organized chronologically. That's about it. --Eyrian 21:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Maybe you cna try deleting that one too. Good luck. Artw 21:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Please be civil; we should be discussing the article, not sniping at other editors. María (críticame) 23:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and edit as with any other article that contains encyclopedic and nonencyclopedic content. There is unfortunately every reason to expect that every last one of the articles dealing with every possible theme used in works of human creativity will be nominated for deletion. The hypothesis is apparently that while the authors of works of art may be important, and possibly the publication history and a word or two about the plot, nothing else about them is. DGG (talk) 06:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Once again, incorrect. It's just that that importance needs to be demonstrated by a reliable source, just like everything else in Wikipedia. --Eyrian 16:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Each of the items on the page should have a blue link to an article that meets WP:NOTE, establishes the item has Sirius as a major theme (and not just "something named Sirius"), and is a work of fiction. Any judgement calls on top of that are purely subjective, so a matter for consesus. You seem to be arguing that each and ever item on the page needs it's own cite on the page, which I don't see supported by any policies. Artw 17:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• The question is not whether Sirius appears, it's whether that appearance is significant. That significance needs to be cited, otherwise the article is just a collection of insignificant data, i.e. a trivia collection. From WP:V: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." I challenge that significance for all of these entries. Therefore,the significance should be attributed to a reliable, published source with an inline citation. --Eyrian 18:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• You're really reaching here. WP:V would refer to the factual content, not the importance of the content. So you oculd challenge "Canopus in Argos series of novels by Doris Lessing. Star-visitors from Sirius play a part in Earth's history" under WP:V, and remove it if no one could provide sources for that, but you can't use WP:V to demand a cite for the relative importance of that fact. Artw 18:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Incorrect. We're not discussing significance of the fact within the work, but significance to a larger culture. Do you think things that aren't significant to culture should be included in these sorts of lists? A work can be used to justify the significance of plot elements within itself, but not in a broader societal context. --Eyrian 18:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Nothing to do with WP:V or it's applicability here. Artw 18:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• No. By placing something on such a list, it's societal importance is being asserted. That assertion needs to be verified. --Eyrian 18:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Eyrian, this is at best a reason for challenging individual items on the article talk page where they strength of the evidence can be discussed. . If this is the basis of your objection, you mean keep and edit, not delete. If we deleted every articles with some questionable content, what would be left? WP is more than an encyclopedia of GAs. Of course, there is a purpose to a more selective encyclopedia. Why not set up your own fork? The license permits, and the software is available, and then you can choose whichever articles you want. DGG (talk) 05:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I move for deletion only when removal of the trivia leaves nothing. As it would in this case. There's nothing wrong with Wikipedia policy or (much of) the community; it usually works out in the end. --Eyrian 05:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

comment I've made some updates to the article for Half Asleep in Frog Pajamas, including a reference which establishes the DOgon, their beliefs and the Sirius mysteries as major themes in the book. Sirius is integral to the book, and was not picked arbitarily, and the title of the book itself is a farily obvious reference to the Nommo. This seems fairly relevant given the number of people basing their delete votes on this being "list of things that just happen to be called Sirius". Artw 07:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Still no evidence of general cultural relevance. --Eyrian 07:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

If the people who give their rational for deletion as "list of things that just happen to be called Sirius" wish to change their rational to "no evidence of general cultural relevance" they can do so, however that was not the point I was addressing. You don't have to reply to every single comment Artw 07:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

comment I've added a source to the opening statement, , concerning the customary use of Sirius as a setting in SF. Artw 21:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete A trivial list, not a notable subject, if it needs to be mentioned, do it in the main article. Dannycali 22:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete a pointless list of useless and un-sourced information --Childzy ¤ Talk 16:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

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.