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. Phaedriel - 02:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

31st century[edit]

31st century (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This page contains very little information likely to be of any interest to anybody; it's just a collection of fictional events happening in the 31st century, and I'd guess that much of that is based upon original research. There is only one piece of worthwhile info there, about the Transit of Venus, but nobody would come to this article looking for that. I don't imagine that it passes WP:NOTE. What's the point? Rambutan (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unless there are references discussing fictional events in the 31st century, it's original research. MarkBul 17:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The only non-fictional thing on the list is the Venus transit, and that is a systematic/predetermined thing (see point #2 under WP:CRYSTAL). The rest is fictional, and if it should be kept at all, it should be moved to a "list of references to the 31st century in popular culture" or something, and I highly doubt that article would be kept (it isn't really encyclopaedic, and it is also a list of loosely-associated topics). Melsaran (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Of course it's filled with fictional events. Ain't nothing wrong with fiction. Indeed, it's a common science fiction staple to gaze 1,000 years into the future, with classic bestselling authors such as Arthur C. Clarke and Robert A. Heinlein offering an idea as to the advance in technology that a millenium would bring. This is more frequent in "books" than in movies. Many of us used to "read" before the Internet was invented. Articles like this are of longstanding on Wikipedia, and every once in awhile someone gets upset because they won't live to see 2107 or 3007. Strangely enough, millions of people have been visiting the 30th and 31st Centuries by way of authors like Clarke and Heinlein, and have been doing so for a long time. We have articles about Oz, even though most of us have only gone there vicariously. And we were reading about 2007 a long time before 2007. Mandsford 22:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep It will grow with time, I was looking for it and found it helpful. futurebird 00:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep SF is within our scope, and being useful is appropriate justification for navigational pages; this is best seen as one of them. I note we have similar pages for every future sentury , and most future decades.DGG (talk) 04:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's part of a series, albeit the last item in category:Centuries at the moment. I've added another astronomical event. - Fayenatic (talk) 07:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being part of a series doesn't count - notability is not inherited. It must be notable in itself.--Rambutan (talk) 09:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - personally I think it is hard to argue that a century is not notable and even harder that the 30th century is but the 31st is not, especially if there are a similar number of SF publications listed, which refering to that time period. I actually do find the information provided rather interesting. Optimale ^Gu 12:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as there is no point to delete this article. I do agree that it needs huge clean up but I strongly vote for keeping this article. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 07:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Perfectly notable. --ざくら木 12:49, 18 September 2007 (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.