Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Keep. There is consensus not to delete this essay, although how exactly it should be tagged is not clear. {{Failed}} and {{historical}} were both proposed, but neither gathered significant support and there are concerns that neither of those tags would really apply to this case. Keeping this as an essay seems to have gathered the most support. There were also concerns about the current name of the page, but there wasn't really any discussion about what the new title should be. It's probably best to continue that discussion through the relevant process. Jafeluv (talk) 11:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)[edit]

Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Confusingly, unlike all other Wikipedia:Notability (xxxx) pages, this fails to set forwards any guidance on the notability of fiction, and consists instead of mostly off-topic ramblings about fiction. At the least, this needs a rename. 86.** IP (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mark as historical - as it does detail previous failed proposals. Achowat (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-tag as {{failed}}. Revert to a previous version. Advise interested essay writers that copy editing failed proposals into essays muddies the water, confuses the project history, and leads to a poor essay with an inappropriately broad title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Revert to which proposal? There were several (see the "Previous proposals"); none could achieve consensus, and going back to just one -- that confuses the project history. – sgeureka t•c 05:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Probably revert to this version of 16:19, 7 December 2010. Everything since is overwriting history with something different. Is it possible to split the history? The Essay needs a rename, as the link to it looks like the link to a guideline page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See also the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Reducing_page_to_a_simply_essay_with_links_to_guide from Dec2010-May2011. – sgeureka t•c 05:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in whatever form, unsure about the tag. Technically, it's not historical as this page gives the present consensus. It's also not failed, since it's not a proposal. It is an essay that explains how wikipedia got where it is now regarding fiction (and that shouldn't be deleted!); a renaming or a merger into e.g. WP:WAF might be suitable too. – sgeureka t•c 05:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • WAF is a guideline; we probably shouldn't merge an essay/failed proposal there. 86.** IP (talk) 05:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looking over FICT and WAF now, I actually think they say pretty much the same thing these days. FICT's "Notability guidelines" section is analogous to WAF's "Notability" section, FICT's "What Wikipedia is not" is analogous to WAF's "Accuracy and appropriate weight" section (mainly regarding WP:NOT#PLOT), FICT's "Manual of style" section refers to WAF itself, FICT's "Lists of fictional elements" section is analogous to WAF's "Summary style approach" section, and FICT's "Consult Wikiprojects" section is analogous to WAF's "Related WikiProjects" section. What remains is the list of failed notability proposals, but they IMO should be listed somewhere. – sgeureka t•c 11:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and mark historical since this is very likely to be attempted again. This will make sure people are aware of previous attempts and work. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but I don't care how it is tagged (outside of "rejected" since it a non-proposed essay). Yes, unlike most notability guidelines that point to the whitespace of what's allowed, this is specifically written around the inverse blackspace that we know we can't exist at due to failed past consensus. The fact that fiction notability has been tried several times to codified and failed (for a variety of reasons) needs to be reflected by something to avoid retreading the same ground again. Yes, WAF covers most of the same thing, but that's whitespace advice, not blackspace of what's already been tried and know not to work, an essay unsuited for there. --MASEM (t) 16:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As it stands, it's misnamed. the Manual of style and WP:NOTPLOT are advice on how to write an article on fiction; they have nothing to do with the notability of the fiction. 86.** IP (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw this proposal: This is not a substitute for suitable discussions, such as WP:village pump (proposal) or WP:village pump (miscellaneous). This nomination neglects good faith on this essay and is based on dissatisfaction of the page's current state. I've done nominating pages before, and I'm convince that I have done things out of bad faith. I must assure you that this discussion must be continued elsewhere because something can be done about it. MFD is not a good place to start. --George Ho (talk) 23:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, but I have no intention of withdrawing the proposal. The essay is, at the very least, misnamed: about 75% of it does not cover notability, but instead links to guidelines for how to write articles on fiction. Stylistic advice on content creation is nothing to do with notability. The places you suggest would be inappropriate locations to discuss it. 86.** IP (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as essay: describes the failed proposals, and existing policies that remain in its place. This is one of those areas where being as factual as possible helps, and even the "failed" tag has an unintentional way of inviting too much interpretation. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as essay- I agree with all above. Reyk YO! 02:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as essay—wow, this brings back old memories from the summer after my first year of college. How time flies! —Deckiller (t-c-l) 03:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{historical}} is not appropriate, as it was never functional. {{failed}} is what it once was. As an {{essay}}, it needs to be Renamed, and if renamed, even the redirect is inappropriate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but mark historical. This represents a failed process, failed due to continual filibustering, but the extensive discussion will serve as a base for understanding the issues. Perhaps some day, another attempt could be made--the last attempt came fairly close to reaching consensus. It really shouldn't be kept under the current title, because a notability guideline saying there is no such guideline is confusing. DGG ( talk ) 20:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it was a noble effort that failed. There is no reason it might not be attempted again. I also use this as an example in other debates. This is a very very important part of Wikipedia history and still plays a role in policy today as an example of what happens when you try to over reach your boundaries. I see no valid reason to delete this. Ridernyc (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2012 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Notability_(fiction)&oldid=1138700633"