Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troas (fictional planet)

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 delete. Sandstein 18:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Troas (fictional planet)[edit]

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

Unreferenced plot summary without indication of real-world notability. Fairly short. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 04:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, fictional cruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notable, massively so. The planet appears in multiple notable stories/novels by Isaac Asimov, Poul Anderson and others. This topic clearly passes criteria 5 of NBOOK. It also satisfies GNG (search for troas+planet, and for the stories and authors, etc in GBooks and elsewhere). Furthermore, this topic is not just a planet. It can be regarded as a 'series' of stories. This nomination is a classic example of 'salami tactics' whereby a nominator seeks to treat a single topic (a series of stories) as multiple topics (refusing to acknowledge the stories are a group) in a bid to try to make each of the alleged multiple topics look less notable. This approach cannot be tolerated because it would eventually result in the deletion of every single article in the encyclopedia. Even if this topic was not notable, it would still be ineligible for deletion on grounds of ATD and PRESERVE because it could be merged with the stories. There is no way we should even be thinking about deleting this. James500 (talk) 06:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd be more convinced by James500's statement if he actually linked (or named) what the references are. Based on [1], I don't think it's notable. NBOOK#5 is clearly not met; this is a fictional setting, not a work of literature (and the two works it is used in have separate pages). power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:15, 24 March 2018 (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.