Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtual novel

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual novel[edit]

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

The term "virtual novel" has certainly been used before on the web to refer to web fiction, but I have looked for reliable sources to support this original research about the unfinished nature of the work, Gibson's coinage, etc., and I failed. The article creator removed the prod, but didn't provide any sources.

I've just moved Webserial to the more inclusive title of Web fiction, so removing this unverifiable content does not deprive readers of an article on the area. The article creator asserted on my talk page that "a Virtual Novel is just a novel published on the WWW not on paper" (which is not what the article says), so this other article should be adequate for our readers. "Virtual x" is a bit of a dated way of referring to online content that was used in the mid-90s, much like "Cyber-" (see e.g. [1]); the same thing referred to by another name should not have a separate article written about it.

The term has also been applied to an unwritten or unfinished novel,[2] and to a pseudo-historical novel,[3] so perhaps we could replace this article with a disambig page to Unfinished work, Counterfactual history, and Web fiction? Fences&Windows 14:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 14:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 14:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Possibly this is a notable topic, but this article is too weakly sourced to warrant keeping in its present form. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To few sources Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2010 (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.