"

 Merging Dark matter in fiction 

The concept is not something that requires an entire article. It should be placed here and kept down to two or three paragraphs. The lists are pointless and do not need to be kept, though a few important examples can be taken to be used in the paragraphs.   
 Oppose per recent AfD.   
How does using a ""no consensus"" AfD to oppose something make any sense? If you believe that the information cannot fit here, please just state that instead.   
There was no consensus for deletion, which is what the merge would effectively be - or are you suggesting that anything actually be added to the article beyond the paragraph that is already there?   \
I'm thinking the beggining paragraphs and a decent number of examples for now. Either way, the current article would have to end up in that shape anyway.   
 If it's going to be here, will this article's editors actually permit it? I get the feeling that article was created as a spinout of this one.   
Generally, they are only created because people keep piling on every single trivial reference to the topic they can find. They aren't usually split if they are actually kept down to a decent size.   
Right, but there's a tangibly greater resistance to WP:IPC sections in hard science topics than there are in general arts/literature articles.  I've already gone through and pared the list down during the AfD, and flagged about half of the rest as unreferenced.  If only the referenced sections were kept, that would still be substantially larger than the target size you advocate. In my mind, another AfD in a month or two would be a more straightforward way to handle it: either the list meets notability guidelines or it doesn't, but calling it a ""merge"" and deleting 90+% of the content is not the right way to get rid of the article.   
The problem with going back to AfD is that the system is completely hit or miss. If you get the right people, it is certainly possible to get this deleted on the second go, but at the same time, it is also possible that this could get to the fifth nomination without anything more the five ""no consensus"" results. Merging in the few decent references and a few of the examples is much better, as it allows for more control.   
Eh, I guess I'd rather see the entries that currently fail WP:V sourced or removed and the list kept as a separate article, so I guess that means I Oppose this merger as stated.   
The separate lists will have to be removed eventually, so there is really no benefit in keeping it. Even if you were to add references to every one of the current pieces of trivia, they would still be take up undue weight, and it would have to shift into paragraph format eventually. The proper way is to cite one or two for each different kind of media, and in a properly sourced article, they could probably be used to identify things like the first real use of Dark Matter in fiction and the like.   
 That eventuality isn't obvious to me from my reading of WP:SAL and WP:IPC.   
We do not have any featured lists that follow this kind of format (unless you can point any out), so that is one definite sign that these are doomed to either sit forever, be deleted, or actually be used to fill in the parent topic. Despite the fact that these are never sourced, it would actually be quite easy to do so if someone felt like it, and such a list would probably still be flat-out rejected for being trivial.   
Oppose merge.  Good list that could be improved.  Best, My talk 
Oppose. Almost all the examples in the 'Dark matter in fiction' article are very different to dark matter in astronomy. They are better as separate articles. Putting the fiction stuff here would distract attention away from the science and discourage ex