Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fermat's Last Theorem in fiction

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. Wizardman 02:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fermat's Last Theorem in fiction

Full article is a "trivia section". Has no regular section. Georgia guy (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This list is a loosely associated conglomeration of trivial references to Fermat's Last Theorem, with no references in sight. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No references? Isn't the article only, or at least primarily, a list of references? Michael Hardy (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article was originally a section of Fermat's Last Theorem, but "spun out" because it was getting rather long. (See Talk:Fermat's last theorem#In fiction). If the presence of a regular section is essential, that can easily be catered for by supplying one, rather than deleting this article (and seeing it come back as a section in the FLT article). As to the absence of references, if you write something like "In Tom Stoppard's play Arcadia, Septimus Hodge poses the problem of proving Fermat's Last Theorem ...", then the source for this is Tom Stoppard's play Arcadia. It is possible to add a reference to a note saying something like "4. ^Tom Stoppard. Arcadia.", but doing that is just silly. Most entries are self-referenced in this way. Anyway, lack of citations is not a ground for deleting the whole article. --Lambiam 00:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Trivia sections are generally discouraged, but "in popular culture" sections are exceptions. Calling this "in fiction" may not be optimal, but deletion seems inappropriate. (In spite of my voting for the deletionist above in his RfA.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this is one trivia article that is notable. --Bduke (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided - I think one of the problems here is that this is a "spin off" article, and it's hard to say. For the moment, I'd say trim and merge back, but I'm not sure. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In a more nearly perfect world, I'd just as soon see most of these sections sent to the briny deep. But will they stay there? Some things really are Better Here Than There, that problematic essay notwithstanding, and I don't really see most of the usual "delete" voters in these discussions volunteering to make sure the main article stays clean. Sequestering this sort of material in a side article strikes me as a useful form of harm reduction -- people who care about it can maintain it, readers who are genuinely interested can find it, and it's sufficiently off the beaten path that it doesn't much detract from the scholarly focus of the visible part of the encyclopedia. --Trovatore (talk) 01:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a trivia article....however, it is interesting and notable. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Calling it an "article" may be a bit of a stretch, but Lambiam and Trovatore make a persuasive case that keeping it is a good compromise from the point of view of maintaining the FLT article itself. Arcfrk (talk) 06:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's an "in popular culture" article, not a "trivia" article - completly different thing. WP:IPC does not forbid such articles. References are in primary sources which are linked directly or indirectly via Wiki link. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The notion that trivia lists need to be their own articles as a "compromise" is bull poo. They don't need to be in the main article or anywhere else. If a work of fiction mentions the theorem, say so in that article. That's all you need. Enok^talk 15:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the problem is that, no, we shouldn't say so in the main article. Doesn't belong there. If people are going to insist on it being somewhere, then there needs to be a somewhere else. --Trovatore (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wasn't talking about the article Fermat's Last Theorem. We can agree that this junk doesn't belong there. I was referring to articles like The Royale, Treehouse of Horror VI, et cetera. Just mention the theorem in passing there. Enok^talk 21:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm going to say keep on this one, since Fermat's last theorem is something that has penetrated very deeply into popular culture. Everyone hears of it and all the legends and myths connected with it very early in life. That fact should get reported in Wikipedia, and it seems appropriate that it should not be in the Fermat's last theorem article itself, since this is a culture topic and not a math topic. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although it may be a spin off from the main article, it still consists of a trivia list with no other information or commetnary on Fermat's Last theorem in fiction. -- Whpq (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This isn't a trvia article, it's a "popular culture" type article. The significance of theorem and its prevalaance in popular culture means this is sufficiently notable to keep. Tompw (talk) (review) 20:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It would be preferable to trim, to make significant mentions (in Porges and Stoppard, FLT drives the plot; in Fforde, it's a passing weirdness on a single page) more prominent. But no reason to delete. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Tough call, as it is really a trivia section with no encyclopedic content, and Wikipedia is not a miscellaneous collection of trivia. - Chardish (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments other keepers have given. —Lowellian (reply) 02:07, 31 March 2008 (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.