Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reworked fiction

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. Star Mississippi 01:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reworked fiction

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article, which began under the title Fictioner-revisers and was later renamed Reworked fiction, is about the idea of an author changing and republishing a ~~novel~~ work of fiction. None of the editors engaged on the talk page have found any reliable sources that talk about that idea as a thing, not even the article creator. I have found the term "reworked fiction" being used, but only as a description of a specific book. It isn't an idea or concept that anyone seems to have written about. This idea doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG for a stand-alone article. Edited to clarify subject of article per comment below. Schazjmd (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Schazjmd (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the article (which would be more accurately titled "Author-reworked fiction") is about authors who have reworked their works of fiction, not only about authors who have reworked their novels. Of the three authors, and their works, cited by me in the article (Mary Shelley, Walt Whitman, Edward Fitzgerald), only Mary Shelley was a novelist.

Nihil novi (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On further thought, given that the term "fiction" tends to be used in a sense exclusive of poetry, and that two of the three authors listed here were poets, a more apt title might be something like "Author-reworked literature".

Nihil novi (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – As I posted on the talk page, I agree with Rwood128 and Schazjmd. This article has no reputable source for the term. The examples (they have since been deleted) are works that have been revised, but do not validate the term or indicate that it is important. Any good work of fiction has been revised multiple times.—Anita5192 (talk) 21:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article's examples of authors and works were deleted by Rwood128. I have now restored them.

Obviously a serious practitioner of any art, such as the writing of fiction, revises his work before initially putting it before the public. That was not what I had in mind when I decided to write this article. Its topic is previously published works of fiction that have been reworked by their authors.

This article, if given a chance to show its fuller potential, is likely to interest readers who care about literature and authors.

Nihil novi (talk) 03:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I may offer a suggestion, have you considered writing an essay about this topic and publishing it somewhere? I'm actually interested in the history and practice of authors reworking previously published stories. The problem for Wikipedia is that this isn't a topic that's resulted in sufficient citations to prove notability here. But since no one has really written about this topic, that presents you an opportunity to be one of the first to do so. But what you write just can't be published here. SouthernNights (talk) 11:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SouthernNights: Thanks for your constructive suggestion. Perhaps, when I have the leisure to adequately research the topic and find a suitable reliable-source publication, I'll try my hand at an essay. In the meantime, I will happily cede priority to someone else who takes up this intriguing topic.

Nihil novi (talk) 18:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree that this is just the wrong venue for the information. A Wikipedia article needs citable sources that define the scope of the topic. There's no published source to say how and why a piece of reworked fiction differs from any other edition of the book. I wish you luck if you pursue the topic in another venue. It's interesting, we just don't have a good way to cover it right now. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 08:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a totally originally term without any citations or literature to support notability. A search in the Wikipedia Library, for example, returned zero hits on articles or coverage for the term.--SouthernNights (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sadly Nihil novi has been unable to channel his obvious enthusiasm into a meaningful topic.Rwood128 (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it does appear the term reworked is used fairly frequently. See, for example: "Novelists rework Shakespeare's King Lear to explore" [1]. But this is different from what this article is concerned with. Angela Carter famously "reworked" fairy tales. And classical mythology is constanrly being reworked. Rwood128 (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I have made additions in an attempt to guide the article in a better direction.Rwood128 (talk) 22:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is this different from derivative work? I suggest redirecting it there. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My foolish intervention clearly failed. Rwood128 (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As far as I can work out, the scholarship that happens on this topic is what we cover at textual criticism. If sourcing for this article exists it would likely be from the discipline of scholarly editing, but they seem to just assume that all literature exists in multiple versions, and they don't seem to consider multiple published versions to be any different from other kinds of texts. Even with a fair bit of digging I haven't turned up anything that makes a general statement about reworked fiction / multi-published-variant works (nor a term for them!), just scattered textual criticism of individual works with that kind of history. I don't think there's any need for a merge or a redirect here. These are completely different from derivative works, since those introduce a new author, so I particularly don't think that redirect would be appropriate. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:39, 8 September 2024 (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.