Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mesklin

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mesklin

[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)

Non-notable article about a location composed of unreliable or primary sources. For WP:Before, a search showed only trivial mentions and in-universe plot summaries, without significant coverage or reception. Jontesta (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mission of Gravity. Some part of the text can be salvaged, and the novel is the main "user" of Mesklin. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mesklin gets a fair amount of discussion in literature about science fiction (mostly in the context of Mission of Gravity). It is generally considered a (or even the) prototypical example of hard science fiction worldbuilding. Some examples:
- The Dictionary of Science Fiction Places p. 199
- The Visual Encyclopedia of Science Fiction p. 87
- The Science in Science Fiction p. 56
- How Space Physics Really Works: Lessons from Well-Constructed Science Fiction p. 31
- A Companion to Science Fiction p. 195

There are also things like "Applying Science to Fiction: A Look at the Fictional Planet Mesklin" (which I am unfortunately not able to read the full text of), and much, much more is available by simply searching for "Mesklin" at the Internet Archive (I haven't read it in full, but the first hit leads to Donald M. Hassler's chapter "The Irony in Hal Clement's World Building" in Science Fiction Dialogues, which covers Mesklin for several pages). I don't think WP:Notability is seriously in question here, and there's certainly an argument to be made that the fictional planet gets more attention as the point of focus in the secondary literature than the story it first appeared in. TompaDompa (talk) 13:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Clarityfiend to Mission of Gravity. WP:BEFORE shows that the reception of the novel its science are covered in the same scope. Both articles are under sourced and will improve through a merge, per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update I have located a fair number of sources providing coverage of Mesklin and have begun the process of rewriting and expanding the article based on these sources. Based on what I have found, I think merging this article with the Mission of Gravity article would be misguided. At minimum, I would suggest relisting this discussion to give more time for rewriting and expanding the article so we can make as informed a decision on the matter as possible. TompaDompa (talk) 21:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mission of Gravity as not requiring a split. Coverage of it in secondary sources appears trivial. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mission of Gravity: per Clarityfiend. I did find some coverage (particularly from Harvard Uni), which is why I'd support a merge rather then a flat-out deletion. Sir MemeGod  20:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC) [reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Great work on improving the article. Sir MemeGod  16:59, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mesklin is also the name of the book series comprised of Mission of Gravity, Star Light and Close to Critical, so it could hypothetically be reframed to stay. However, the latter two books show the weight and detail that should be given to the planetory setting, meaning the current article is excessive and relies to much on WP:PRIMARY sources to really stand on its own. I've also read the summary of MoG: It's the science that drives the story, not the characters. The world is the plot.. ~~In that way, I am leaning towards merge the sole planet article but keep as a book series article.~~ – sgeureka ^t•c 13:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced a series article is super needed vs. just a section in Mission of Gravity detailing the book's sequels. Ultimately Mission of Gravity just needs some major expansion to detail its apparent importance, as right now it's start-class. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Keep per WP:HEY. Anything else can be solved editorially (if it even needs solving). – sgeureka ^t•c 12:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator I am good merging to Mission of Gravity. Jontesta (talk) 23:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update 2 I have located sources and then sourced, expanded, and rewritten the article almost from scratch based on those sources. There is still some polishing to do (I haven't really started on the WP:LEAD, for instance), but based on what I have managed to do with the article thus far I stand by my previous assessment that merging it with Mission of Gravity would be misguided (not all of the information relates to that book, for one thing). I invite @Jontesta, Clarityfiend, Shooterwalker, Zxcvbnm, Sir MemeGod, and Sgeureka: to give it another look. TompaDompa (talk) 02:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:HEY. I have struck out my previous !vote, as TompaDompa has put their money where their mouth is and successfully improved the article drastically. It's now one of the top articles on a fictional planet. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:29, 25 September 2024 (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.