Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sentient fictional planets

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 of the debate was Keep. (aeropagitica) 20:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of sentient fictional planets[edit]

Initially given {{prod}} but this was removed without comment except for "rmv prod". Covered in Planets in science fiction, will not serve as a useful redirect. (Although the target could use renaming following the related series of deletions.) brenneman ^{T}^{L} 14:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft. --Ter e nc e Ong 16:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, I guess it's a reasonably well-defined list. -- Mithent 17:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete listcruft. Eusebeus 17:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, although it should probably be List of fictional sentient planets (in contrast, I suppose, to List of sentient planets). Maybe a category would work better? Peter Grey 18:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. I see no compelling reason to weaken our coverage of fictional planets nor has the nom even attempted to provide one. Perhaps this nom could also explain the meaning of "covered in Planets in Science Fiction". That may be true in an alternate universe or in a fictional article located in a fictional wiki on a fictional planet. Perhaps that is where the nom verified this info before adding his prod to the article. However, back in the real world, in a real wiki, known as wikipedia, in a real article known as Planets in Science Fiction- none of these planets are covered. -- JJay 18:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, most of these planets can be reached through the PiSF article. Ego, Gaia, Mogo, Zonama Sekot, and Unicron are available through the links to the appropriate existing lists (Marvel Comics, Foundation Universe, DC Comics, Star Wars, Transformers). Pandarve, Petaybee and Wormwood are in the alphabetical list. Gaea is listed under Artificial planets. RandomCritic 20:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have been quite busy editing since I made my comment, thereby proving my point. Had no one acted to remove the nom's prod, with or without comment, the information would have been lost. -- JJay 20:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete listcruft. If anyone cares to this could be merged to Planets in Science Fiction.--Isotope23 19:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JJay. This is not a list of generic planets, but a list of planets which are themselves sentient -- rather a different thing, and not covered anywhere else. bikeable (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Isotope23. --BWD^(talk) 19:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per BWD and Isotope23. --Larsinio 20:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, BWD and I both voted to Delete with a possible merge...--Isotope23 16:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a collection of indiscriminate information. Brian G. Crawford 20:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect bogdan 20:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but move to List of fictional sentient planets, since that syntax is clearer. List is well-defined and potentially useful. -Colin Kimbrell 22:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{spoiler}}

Keep and move; well-defined list about an interesting theme in science fiction. Add Solaris. David Sneek 22:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colin Kimbrell. But wasn't the ocean in Solaris sentient, not the entire planet? Monicasdude 22:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the book; in the Tarkovsky movie I think you may be right and it was the ocean, but in the Soderergh film I believe it was the whole planet. David Sneek 11:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a planet versus biosphere distinction is important for this list. Peter Grey 19:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Colin Kimbrell. It's an interesting and easily defined grouping, and perfect for a list because the concept has been used in more than a couple, but less than a gazillion works of fiction. Postdlf 01:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colin Kimbrell. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interesting addition. Could use expansion. Dlohcierekim 13:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unlike many song lists and such, this is a pretty useful, relevant, and non-arbitrary list. -LtNOWIS 20:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interesting but move to better name. Meritus 18:25, 18 March 2006 (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.