Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional fictional character (2nd nomination)

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. The lack of citations to any secondary sources reflecting this concept gives strong support to the majority's contention that it is original research. Wikipedia is not in the business of inventing concepts. The minority of "keep" opinions does not convincingly address this problem. Sandstein 05:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional fictional character

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

(1) No such concept exists - it's been invented by Wikipedia • (2) unreferenced for 4 years • (3) contains original research written in essay form • (4) no reliable sources use this term • (5) results of previous delete debate ignored DionysosProteus (talk) 21:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —DionysosProteus (talk) 21:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WP:WikiProject Theatre and WP:WikiProject Literature informed DionysosProteus - (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Searches on google books and google scholar only return results that are founded on the existence of the Wikipedia article. Concept does not exist in any of the sources researched for character article (see sources). DionysosProteus (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems pretty clearly not to be a verfiable concept, Sadads (talk) 22:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- pretty clearly original research, and there aren't any sources to be found. Reyk _YO! 22:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fictional fictional characters are a well-used feature of fiction stories, even if Wikipedia had to provide a name for them. The source references are the stories that these characters occur in. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No one is denying that characters appear "inside" other works of fiction. But WP:OR prohibits articles from creating concepts, quite unambiguiously. None of the stories, films, etc., nor any commentary on them, uses this term. It is inappropriate for Wikipedia editors to start to invent critical terms. If anyone wishes to do so, he/she needs to write an article about it and get it published in a reliable, third-party source. Then and only then may an article on the subject appear here. DionysosProteus (talk) 10:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment descriptive terms (as opposed to prescriptive terms) only need to describe the concept, and the title of this article is descriptive, so describes the subject. That's not original research. 64.229.100.45 (talk) 04:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid not. If we were describing the plot of a novel or play, then we'd only need the work in question as a source. This is presented as a critical term and has no existence outside of this article on Wikipedia. It's status as unsourced, original research couldn't be clearer. DionysosProteus (talk) 05:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The principal objection seems to be the language of the title but this is not addressed by deletion but, instead, by move/merger. The concept of a story within a story is well established in literary theory, being common in works such as the Arabian Nights which has many levels of nesting. As stories involve characters, there is a place for them in this structure. For an example of third-party scholarly discussion of this, please see Genette's Taxonomy of Narrators. This uses language such as intradiegetic and doubly-embedded but choosing between these is just a matter of ordinary editing for clarity, not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have no objection to the proposal to move the article to a title that accords with current scholarly usage, but the namespace fictional fictional character would need to be deleted, since there's no such thing. A merge into diegesis would be fine, on condition that any material that is imported is referenced with appropriate citations--the other main objection, along with the non-existence of the article's title as a critical term and thus its violation of WP:OR, is that the material has been unreferenced for some time now. If the terms you propose have been coined by one or two scholars and are not in general usage, then that too needs to be indicated. Beyond the list of examples, I don't think that any of the actual material is salvageable, though I'm happy to be proven wrong with citations. DionysosProteus (talk) 13:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if you don't like the title, then rename it. That's not a very good reason for deletion. That fictional characters that are considered fictional by fictional characters in fictional works is clearly evident in many works of fiction. 64.229.100.45 (talk) 04:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are several reasons for deleting this article, as given above. The fact that "fictional fictional character" is a non-existent term is only one of the reasons. It's original research and unsourced for years. Of course, the latter follows directly from the non-existence of the former. DionysosProteus (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While there are some parallel concepts that are verifiable (story within a story, diegesis, etc.), the nom rightly points out that this whole thing is a heap of OR. Thus there's nothing usable to merge to any other article...you can't ship OR off to some other article under the guise of "merge", that's just spreading unwanted content around. The "keep" !voters above say that the chief problem seems to be the title, but I don't see it that way: I see a whole article making analytical/substantive claims without a single source cited. If there are sources to bring to bear, use them to improve the other related articles instead. No sense trying to save a pile of OR. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The page IS linked to from articles: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Fictional_fictional_character . Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only 10 of those are in article space. Anyway I don't really see what that proves. The fact that it's linked a few times doesn't have any bearing on the article being a pile of OR, or the subject being of questionable verifiability. Anyway number of incoming links has never been a barrier to deletion. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The fact that this article is linked to by others is another reason that it ought to be deleted. The false idea that such a thing as a "fictional fictional character" exists is spreading to other articles. If any of those other articles were actually providing a citation that supported the term, everything would be fine. But they don't. The only reason editors are including this misleading term in their articles, is that they've found it here. It is precisely for that reason that it needs to go. DionysosProteus (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteIt's a big mess of OR (its very title is OR) and the more it's linked to by other articles the more misleading it gets. I'm shocked it's been kept this long. Millahnna (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - From reading the prior AfD, I would have said Smerge to Story within a story. However, this article is so lacking that there is nothing to keep. The concept (as a "concept") is OR, as is all the content. Yes, there are "fictional fictional" characters. So what? Nothing anywhere hints that this concept exists as a topic anywhere other than Wikipedia. If we're going to keep this article, we might as well start outlining our own stock characters in film as opposed to discussing such characters appearing in scholarly sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the reasons already given.Bread Ninja (talk) 14:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep according to Col. Warden: major concept in the analysis of fiction. Actually, I think the nom has in effect withdrawn the nomination, saying it agrees that the subject is notable , but that the title needs to be changed. That discussion can be carried out on the article talk page. DGG ( talk ) 18:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No, in no way whatsoever, that would be to misunderstand my remarks completely. Let me be quite clear: in no way does this concept exist in the analysis of literature, theatre, film, etc. Nohwere, nohow. None of the material is supported by a citation--not a singe one. It's all original research. And it's spreading. This is precisely what our guidelines are designed to prevent. At no point did I argue that the subject is notable.--that remains to be proven with citations and given that the article has existed with a request for them for four years, there has been plenty of opportunity for those to be provided. I did a substantial amount of research in this area when I set to cleaning up the character article. It is on that basis that I can say with confidence that the term doesn't exist. I responded to Colonel Warden's comments with strong caveats--namely, that the namespace needs deleting (because there's no such term) and any material on the subject of 'characters who appear inside fictional works of fiction' could only be merged on the condition that appropriate sources were provided. I also expressed scepticism as to the general nature of the usage (it isn't a major concept in literary/theatre/film studies), insisting that the range of use of the terms that Colonel Warden proposed based on his research (intradiegetic and doubly-embedded) would need to be indicated--on the basis of my research in the area, it's pretty limited. --DionysosProteus (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not enough coverage to meet the general notability guideline. I'm sure there are sources that talk about "intradiegetic narratives" and such. But you need more than just verify a definition, or verify existence. You need to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While a redirect to story within a story is not out of the question, given the content here so far a merge wouldn't be helpful, since this looks to be entirely an example farm, with a bit of OR. Yaksar (let's chat) 19:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Content was copied to Metafiction (history, immediately self-reverted) and Story within a story (history, the majority persists through the current revision) in August 2010. Participants should consider if a redirect is acceptable or if an alternate method from WP:Merge and delete, such as moving to Talk:Story within a story/Fictional fictional character, is desired. Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 21 April 2011 (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.