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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Higgs boson in fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This is pretty much an indiscriminate collection of things that happen to mention the Higgs boson. Every prose section is either a minor portrayal or about a non-notable work (no article). Most of the works in the Others section are also very minor portrayals or mere references. The article is mostly unsourced, and all of the references are primary. (The one that does not go to a work of fiction is irrelevant to the context.) Finally, there is little discussion of the list itself (all of which is unsourced WP:OR), and there is no indication of WP:LISTN. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Pure WP:LISTCRUFT, and almost all the mentioned media simply use "Higgs boson" as pure technobabble rather than hard science or science fiction._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This isn't a reasonable subject for an encyclopedic article. Imagine "Gluons in fiction". /Julle (talk) 12:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep Sourcing could use some work, but I don't see an intrinsic problem with such an article, and in some of these cases, the Higgs boson plays a semi-prominent roll.
• Weak delete unlike some commenters, I don’t mind the existence of an article with this name, but as it stands this seems like a WP:TNT candidate. Porphyro (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 23:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete based on WP:NOR policy, and also and WP:LISTN, which says a list article is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. My own search for RS found only derivatives of this WP article. Without secondary, reliable sources, the premise of this article is entirely original research. (Also, a search of article histories shows this article had its origins in the Higgs boson article, but was removed 22 Mar 2005, then became a subject of a merge discussion which apparently failed.) Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 01:19, 14 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.