Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is part of Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal.

6 (fan fiction)[edit]

"Any article that states that it describes a character or story from fiction, that was never published except on the internet or in a fan magazine, nor written by a published author" should be added to the criteria for speedy deletion.
  • Any verifiable encyclopedic article about any kind of fiction would have some mention of publication, or a reference to the author.
  • Fan fiction generally refers to people who take an existing fictional setting and write their own stories in there - for instance, people who write their own story about Harry Potter and a self-imagined faerie or two. Such stories usually get little or no recognition outside their niche, and Wikipedia should not be a vessel to promote them.
  • This definition specifically excludes any kind of published (fan?-) fiction, such as the parody Bored of the Rings.
  • If you are unsure about this proposal, consider that there is a proposed test run to try it out for a month.

vote – discuss

Votes[edit]

This proposal is no longer open for voting. Voting closed on July 19, 2005 15:11 (UTC).

Support[edit]

  1. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 4, 2005 15:50 (UTC)
  2. The majority of fanfic stuff I've seen on VfD lately is related to Star Wars, and verifiability is easily checked on Google. Hermione1980 4 July 2005 16:45 (UTC)
    • "Verifiability is easily checked on Google" is exactly why people don't bother to include it in the article. This criterion doesn't ask for a google test. Kappa 4 July 2005 16:56 (UTC)
      • Since the proposal would require the deleting admin to verify that it has never been published in any non-Internet non-fan-magazine form, even a Google test will not always be sufficient. Factitious July 7, 2005 10:39 (UTC)
  3. Whilst I don't have a particular problem with fanfic, the criteria make it clear that any article nominated under this section would be "below the bar of notability". I support this based upon the proposed test run. Oliver Keenan July 4, 2005 18:16 (UTC)
  4. While I can see a very rare case that might be notable but fall within this, I think common sense would prevail. DES 4 July 2005 18:45 (UTC)
  5. Yes indeed. humblefool® 4 July 2005 20:57 (UTC)
  6. --Henrygb 4 July 2005 21:37 (UTC)
  7. Not positive this will work, but willing to test-run it. --Dmcdevit 4 July 2005 23:30 (UTC)
  8. nixie 4 July 2005 23:47 (UTC)
  9. How did the "assertion" clause get left out of this one? Still, it should serve its purpose. -Splash 5 July 2005 00:55 (UTC)
    1. The "assertion clause" was replaced by the equilivant (and I think better) wording Any article that states ... DES 5 July 2005 03:05 (UTC)
  10. Google is your friend. Denni☯ 2005 July 5 02:11 (UTC)
  11. mikka (t) 5 July 2005 03:04 (UTC)
  12. Die fanficruft die! — Phil Welch 5 July 2005 10:14 (UTC)
  13. Fuzheado | Talk 5 July 2005 03:47 (UTC)
  14. Alphax τεχ 5 July 2005 03:54 (UTC)
  15. I suspect most of these will go to vfd anyway (I know I'd be hesitant to drop a {{db|fanfic}} on an article), but being able to speedy these early is still better than what we have now. --Cryptic (talk) 5 July 2005 04:03 (UTC)
  16. Agree. Here's hoping! Naturenet | Talk 5 July 2005 07:36 (UTC)
  17. This is about what the article claims of its subject. —Theo (Talk) 5 July 2005 10:40 (UTC)
  18. Support. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 5 July 2005 12:20 (UTC)
  19. Not sure that this will come up very often, but if it does, it should be a speedy delete. Warofdreams 5 July 2005 16:35 (UTC)
  20. Acegikmo1 5 July 2005 19:18 (UTC). This will allow easy removal of non-encyclopedic material.
  21. Weak support. The legitimate stuff may be harder to spot and confirm, but I have faith that it will only be used in the obvious cases, e.g. Darth Tony is a really cool Sith Lord who invisibly flew behind Darth Vader at the Battle of Yavin. -- BD2412 talk July 6, 2005 00:55 (UTC)
    • In the case of that example, how would you determine whether or not the character was created by a published author? Factitious July 7, 2005 10:39 (UTC)
      • I would presume that the iron law applies that information regarding any genre worth writing fanfic about can be found on the internet. -- BD2412 talk July 7, 2005 16:45 (UTC)
        • I can think of some cases in which that wouldn't work: (1) a Google search gives no results for Darth Tony; (2) a Google search gives the piece of fanfic that created Darth Tony, but the author's real name is not provided; or (3) a Google search gives the fanfic and the author's name, but there's no information on whether or not he's been published elsewhere. In all of those cases, this proposal would not cover speedy deletion of Darth Tony. Factitious July 9, 2005 02:37 (UTC)
  22. Support. No value to these things. Jayjg (talk) 6 July 2005 02:28 (UTC)
  23. Support. Kill the fancruft!! Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions July 6, 2005 04:32 (UTC)
  24. Support. -R. S. Shaw 6 July 2005 05:02 (UTC)
  25. G Rutter 6 July 2005 07:47 (UTC)
  26. Support. Let's be an ancyclopædia, not a fanzine. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 6 July 2005 09:21 (UTC)
  27. — Trilobite (Talk) 6 July 2005 10:46 (UTC)
  28. --Porturology 6 July 2005 13:06 (UTC)
  29. ➥the Epopt 6 July 2005 13:42 (UTC)
  30. Aphaea* 6 July 2005 14:43 (UTC)
  31. Kaldari 6 July 2005 20:18 (UTC)
  32. Weak support. Not clear for me whether the article must state that the character is fanfic or whether an admin wishing to speedy the article must discover this; I presume the former, as it is too difficult to check. Were it the latter I would oppose. David | Talk 6 July 2005 21:58 (UTC)
    The wording is Any article that states that it describes a character or story from fiction, that... how could this be worded to make it clearer that it only applies if an article is explicitly about fanfic, only if the article so states of itself.DES 6 July 2005 22:13 (UTC)
    The problem is the comma between the first and second clauses which splits them up and creates doubt as to whether the condition in the first clause applies to the second. Perhaps if it was "... from fiction, and which ..." it would be absolutely clear. David | Talk 6 July 2005 23:13 (UTC)
  33. Carnildo 6 July 2005 22:06 (UTC)
  34. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 7 July 2005 02:41 (UTC)
  35. Support. ral315 July 7, 2005 05:28 (UTC)
  36. Support Makes sense, and while there may not be many, they should go away. They can always be re-created with more information on their notability if need be. -Harmil 7 July 2005 14:33 (UTC)
  37. Aye.  Grue  7 July 2005 20:37 (UTC)
  38. Strong Support —thames 7 July 2005 20:48 (UTC)
  39. Support - If it is a character that is only in one fan fic why is anyone voting against this? - Tεxτurε 7 July 2005 21:26 (UTC)
  40. Support. Unless the character is notable in some way outside of the context of somebody's website, an article here would just be a vanity or promo. Kaibabsquirrel 8 July 2005 07:57 (UTC)
  41. Merovingian (t) (c) July 8, 2005 09:16 (UTC)
  42. Neutralitytalk July 9, 2005 09:32 (UTC)
  43. Support Gwk 9 July 2005 16:38 (UTC)
  44. Support for cases where it is clearly stated the character is fanfiction. Unfortunately, most fanfic articles do not mention this, so I don't really anticipate this one being used much. -R. fiend 21:27, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Keep that cruft at bay. Peter Isotalo 17:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support --Allen3 talk 21:48, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  47. -- nyenyec ☎ 00:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  48. This I can live with. Andre (talk) 05:35, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  49. Support Simple and easy. Hiding 08:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. - McCart42 (talk) 13:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Johnleemk | Talk 14:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support - mennonot 16:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  53. MarkSweep 01:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Shanes 05:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Support Dan100 (Talk) 08:48, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  56. Support – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 15:32, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  57. Support. Pavel Vozenilek 19:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Wholeheartedly Support. IanManka 05:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Vegaswikian 05:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Strongly support To an encyclopedia, fan fiction is about one notch above patent nonsense. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:06, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  61. There's always WP:VfU for the inevitable errors that will creep in. We need something to increase the throughput of VfD; better to fix a few errors in a quick system than use a slow, expensive (in time/energy) system. Noel (talk) 01:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Fanfic has a very parents's-basementesque connotation and dilutes the seriousness of Wikipedia. If some marginally-notable fanfic is removed by mistake, all the better. Casito⇝Talk 02:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support --InShaneee 04:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support We are not google or an archieve Cate 13:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

  1. There aren't many of these and they are too difficult to identify. Kappa 4 July 2005 16:28 (UTC)
  2. I object primarily because the wording of this item was added by User:Radiant! without discussion prior to this vote being opened. -- Netoholic @ 4 July 2005 19:04 (UTC)
    • This wording was indeed discussed on the talk page. Several varations of this proposal were discussed. i am sorry that my suggestions, which several people supported were not fully incorportated into the final proposal, but my comments and thsoe of others did change the final proposal. DES 4 July 2005 19:07 (UTC)
  3. that was never published except on the internet or in a fan magazine, nor written by a published author — Proving a negative is too large a task for just 2 editors to perform. This could form part of a set of notability and inclusion guidelines for fictional characters. It would not function well as a speedy deletion criterion, however. Uncle G 4 July 2005 21:03 (UTC)
    • I took this to mean that if the article explicitly said the subject was fanfic, and said that it had been web-published, then it would qualify. If it mentioned any print publication, or any media coverage, they it woul;d have to go to VfD. DES 4 July 2005 22:58 (UTC)
      • if the article explicitly said the subject was fanfic, and said that it had been web-published — That's not what the proposal actually says. The proposal describes things in terms of what the subject is not, not in terms of what the subject is. If it mentioned any print publication, or any media coverage, they it woul;d have to go to VfD. — Performing the research to prove that the article should go to VFD on those grounds is a huge task (reading all of the canonical works in the fictional setting, for starters), and a decision that should not be made by only 2 editors. Uncle G 5 July 2005 12:30 (UTC)
  4. Too hard to prove. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 5 July 2005 03:48 (UTC)
  5. Per Uncle G. Also, fanfic of this sort doesn't appear to comprise a significant burden on daily VfD Xoloz 5 July 2005 06:42 (UTC)
  6. This is VfD territory. See also Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/Z --Tony Sidaway|Talk 5 July 2005 15:13 (UTC)
  7. This rule is too general. — Bcat (talk | email) 5 July 2005 15:44 (UTC)
  8. Per Uncle G. Tough to verify when the article doesn't claim one way or the other, or when the admin isn't familiar with the fiction in question. Meelar (talk) July 5, 2005 16:27 (UTC)
    As written this does not apply unless the article explicitly states that the referent is fan fiction. DES 5 July 2005 19:21 (UTC)
    Ah--that's not how I interpreted the wording (I thought the "states that" provision would only apply to the first part, i.e. that it only stated that it was in fiction). At any rate, my vote stands--as worded this is unclear; in addition, it's not a very common occurrence. Meelar (talk) July 5, 2005 21:45 (UTC)
  9. Too few cases. This is a rather unnecessary proposal. --Sn0wflake 5 July 2005 16:54 (UTC)
  10. Special case, so instruction creep translating as "proponent doesn't like fanfic" - David Gerard 5 July 2005 21:48 (UTC)
  11. Oppose, because it would be abused. As written, this would require the person deleting it to first ensure that it has never been published except on the Internet or in a fan magazine, and then ensure that the author has never been published. Both of those require nontrivial effort. Judging by the comments thus far, this point has not been made sufficiently clear. The proposal would be abused by people who have not actually researched the subject in sufficient depth. Factitious July 6, 2005 00:05 (UTC)
  12. --Mononoke 6 July 2005 00:29 (UTC)
  13. Oppose, unnecessary and burdensome. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 July 6 07:27 (UTC)
  14. Oppose Uncle G phrases another one 'just right' for my opinion. Unfocused 6 July 2005 07:47 (UTC)
  15. Oppose An explicit rule is totally unwarranted here. (Besides, information about obscure fan fiction is an area where Wikipedia could excel.) Stewart Adcock 6 July 2005 08:42 (UTC)
  16. Oppose per Uncle G. Sietse 6 July 2005 10:45 (UTC)
  17. I'm with Uncle G. --Laura Scudder | Talk 6 July 2005 14:16 (UTC)
  18. Oppose, instruction creep unnecessary given rarity. James F. (talk) 6 July 2005 14:24 (UTC)
  19. Oppose. It takes a VfD to establish the notability of fan fiction, and whether such a work is published or not. --Deathphoenix 6 July 2005 14:56 (UTC)
  20. Send it to VfD. --ArmadniGeneral 6 July 2005 16:12 (UTC)
  21. Oppose. It makes no sense for a free online encyclopedia to be prejudiced against free online publication. --FOo 6 July 2005 16:31 (UTC)
  22. Oppose. Insufficient and unnecessary. Nohat 7 July 2005 02:15 (UTC)
  23. Oppose Too often fan-related articles survive VfD. They should continue to go through community evaluation before deletion. Tobycat 7 July 2005 08:11 (UTC)
  24. Oppose per Uncle G. -- Ricky81682 (talk) July 7, 2005 08:17 (UTC)
  25. Oppose. The criteria in and of themselves require a VfD discussion. About 99% of fan fiction articles are microtrivial fancruft, but I can imagine a situation where fancruft might be notable. For example, if there's an official, widely-known fanscript contest, the winner might merit a mention in another article, if not its own. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] July 7, 2005 20:15 (UTC)
  26. Oppose. Per Uncle G. -- Rune Welsh ταλκ July 8, 2005 09:14 (UTC)
  27. Oppose. I bearly understand the wording: I suppose this disqualifies me from admin status ;) Physchim62 8 July 2005 15:35 (UTC)
  28. Oppose. This would be too easily abused by those who indiscriminately throw around the word cruft. This is VFD territory, and is completely inappropriate for speedies. Internet memes can be encyclopedic, and some fan fiction becomes Internet memes. I am afraid I don't trust the intentions of whoever suggested this should be a speedy criterion in the first place. (Otherwise, the rest of the new csd proposal is shaping up nicely :) ) func(talk) 9 July 2005 00:41 (UTC)
  29. 24 at 9 July 2005 18:33 (UTC)
  30. Oppose. I agree with Physchim62, the wording here confused me. :p In any case, i don't think this is necessary. TheCoffee 21:21, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose. These articles should be handled individually on VfD. --Canderson7 18:34, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  32. Oppose. Flat-out internet fanfic I can see, but the inclusion of "fan magazine" turns me against this one: while I imagine the vast majority of that will be non-notable cruft, I can imagine a handful of articles describing critical/fan reaction to a phenonmenon being taken down through this. – Seancdaug 01:58, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  33. Oppose. Too open to abuse. Grace Note 02:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Dsmdgold 14:38, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  35. I would VFD a single fanfic character if I recognize them as being fanfic, simply because it's an extension of the no advertising rule. Still, fanfic by non-published authors could be notable for other reasons. - Mgm|(talk) 12:00, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  36. Too hard to prove to be an effective Speedy Delete. As a result, I expect there to be more Proposal 6 CSDs being reverted to VfDs rather than actually deleted. This only creates more headache for admins, as P6 as a CSD criteria would not help but hinder their work.Inigmatus 17:29, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  37. Wording is vague (proposal). Not too many of these around eighter i suppose. Feydey 23:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Too complicated for Speedy Deletions --Sweets 00:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose. The publishing medium is irrelevant. David Remahl 03:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose as per [[User:Chmod007}David Remahl]]. Superm401 | Talk 04:40, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  41. Oppose per UncleG. DS1953 05:52, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  42. Oppose- what if one of these parodies sweeps the internet and starts a craze? Surely that would be worthy of an article? Besides, as Uncle G points out, it is too hard to verify quickly. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 20:48, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose I'm starting to worry that we're trying to put an awful burden on admins with all these categories that require admin checking beyond the obvious is it nonsense. Hiding 23:09, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  44. Inconsistent with the unnotable-websites rule (which I support). There are fanfics with an audience of over 5000. – Smyth\talk 10:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

Proposal P1[edit]

Note that if Tony Sidaway's new proposal (at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/P1) passes, it would apply to this proposal as well. I think it would answer many of the objections to this proposal. I urge those who have supported this proposal to consider supporting P1 as well, and those who have oppsoed it to consider a conditonal vote of support if and only if proposal P1 also passes. DES 7 July 2005 15:02 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal/6&oldid=1089443699"