Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fiction that breaks the fourth wall (3rd 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 no consensus to delete all. I realize that this will probably get taken to WP:DRV but there's just no consensus to delete all of these articles. W.marsh 17:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

List of fiction that breaks the fourth wall

 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

An enormous, sprawling list, with 5(!) subpages, of examples of use of an extremely common literary device. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information; this list is completely unlimited in this scope and of dubious value, and the Fourth wall article already cites a bunch of historical and contemporary examples in context to illustrate the topic. Has been nominated a couple times before, and kept mainly under the arguments that the list is "useful", and/or that the list could be pruned to only pertinent examples; however, it has only grown exponentially since, and as said above Fourth wall already has a bunch of pertinent examples illustrating the literary device in context. Krimpet (talk) 07:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all - the previous AfD's were far, far from compelling. This is like having a "list of media with a twist ending" - it's a common literary device, and it's an indiscriminate criteria for a list.  --Haemo 08:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all per above. Doczilla 08:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all and improve or nominate individually. It is too soon after the last Afd for improvements to have magically occurred, but these lists are borderline listcruft in my opinion.  There have only been 15 edits since the last Afd, so this can hardly be considered a magnet needing immediate attention.  Proposing them all for deletion presents an impossible task for someone wanting to recycle the content into a better presentation or apply new inclusion criteria.  Each of these entries is potentially new material for the articles they link to.  Fourth wall is extremely short, and would not give the reader a good idea of all the various ways the fourth wall is used, and this information cant be simply gathered from the articles; A Midsummer Night's Dream, on List of theatre that breaks the fourth wall, does not refer to the fourth wall or "direct address".   Two suggestions for culling these lists:
 * Create a category hierarchy, and move articles into it when the article text suitably describes how the fourth wall is used.
 * Group the entries by how the literary/theatric device is used in the work. e.g. List of works that praise the creator, List of works that praise the work, List of works that involve the audience, etc.  Each can then have more specific inclusion criteria
 * I am partial to deleting List of video games that break the fourth wall, as most games do in varying ways: they are by definition interactive. John Vandenberg 09:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all - Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely-associated topics. The items on the list have nothing in common beyond the use of a common dramatic device. Otto4711 12:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 12:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 12:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, not maintainable, fuzzy concept. Any adequately clear criteria for inclusion (e.g., being cited in a scholarly work as breaking the fourth wall) would be arbitrary and lead to warped coverage. -- Visviva 12:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all and improve. No compelling argument for deletion has been made. Was nominated only a month ago & kept. Bad loser renomination. Johnbod 12:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'll just reiterate the statement I made at the last AfD on this article, and say that while a couple of examples in the Fourth wall would be useful for context these lists are not.  A clear violation of WP:NOT as has been said, these works of fiction have nothing in common except for a common literary element.  There are plenty of calls for "keep and improve", but those were also made in the last AfD - saying "keep and improve" holds no water if no one is going to actually improve it.  Regardless, there is nothing that can be "improved" to alter the fact that these lists are not encyclopedic by their nature.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 15:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because nobody has put their shoulder to the plow in order to carry out the communities consensus, doesnt mean nobody ever will. Please make suggestions on what form these lists should take in order to be acceptable to you, so that others can do the improve stage. John Vandenberg 23:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note the last statement - I don't think that any amount of "improvement" will change the fact that these lists are not appropriate per WP:NOT. I realize that just because no one has improved an article after a given amount of time does not mean no one will - but neither can we let unfit articles remain just because someday, someone might try to improve it.   Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 06:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep all, except possibly the video game one. I do feel these meet the list criteria, and Wikipedia is not paper. Ab e g92 contribs 19:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Hoo-boy. Ok, the main list in question does not appear to cite a single source, whatever, for any of its claims.  An editor could be perfectly within their rights, as per policy, to remove just about every single line in the article, since none of them are verified.  I have seen it suggested in these Afd pages that people arguing for deletion of such a list should be willing to improve it, and bring it in line with policy.  I can appreciate this sentiment, but I think it ought to apply to those arguing against deletion as well. I submit that the fact that no one, regardless of their opinion on whether to delete, has been willing to source any of the claims in the article is a strong indication that the list, if not deleted, will remain unsourced indefinitely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Echuck215 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 24 May 2007
 * I object to the last part of your comment; I did not notice the last Afd, otherwise I would have started work on fixing this, like I have on other lists that appear on Afd. I haven't yet started cleaning up these lists because there is too much cleanup to be done within the five days, and as yet there hasnt been any discussion on what improvements would be useful. John Vandenberg 23:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to say that the list cannot be improved: if you are willing to do it, then great! I think we both just want to improve Wikipedia. As for waiting for discussion on useful improvements, I don't think that is necessary if you can improve the article in an uncontroversial way.  And adding sources to unsourced material is definitely an uncontroversial improvement.  If you would like to do that, I would support you in the effort, and if I have time I will try to find some sources myself. Charlie 23:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Cleanup and take to it with the Axe of Verifiability (not to mention a heavy fixing-up of entries that are not actually breaking the fourth wall - I'm amazed that for Family Guy, a show which practically only has 3 walls, at least one of the entries is definitely not a 4th-wall breaker and several others I'd class as borderline). Confusing Manifestation 23:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete All - Quite simply, even with citations, each of those articles would be huge. Plus, breaking the 4th wall is subjective in many cases. ("For all we know, our lives are just a tv show!" would count to some people.) Plus, what really makes any of these events notable? -- Kesh 02:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; Simply because the most-recent AFD wasn't that long ago. I think that we have a sore loser who will nominate this article for deletion every week until it is deleted.  Val42 05:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no policy or guideline that mandates a particular waiting period between AFDs. Calling other editors "sore losers" is not civil and fails to assume good faith. Otto4711 14:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I apologize for calling whomever nominiated this article for deletion this time a "sore loser". There should be some policy for a minimum time between deletion nominations.  I will still vote against deleting this article until it has been at least six months since the last nomination for deletion.  Val42 19:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep all and/or merge into a single list or article on the subject. It is a unique subject that many people have spent hours of time working on, and should be improved upon, not removed. If keeping then merging into fewer lists could reduce the clutter, and make it easier for readers to find. For example, the film, television, and animated series lists could easily be integrated into one list on visual media breaks of the fourth wall.Powergirl 19:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate when people put a lot of work into something that ends up getting deleted, but the fact of the effort is not a reason for keeping the article. Merging different lists together would result in a list with even more unrelated things on it, making the problem worse, not better. Otto4711 14:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd say keep all, but if you must delete them, save the appropriate ones in different articles or sections, such as Team Rocket (anime). Matty-chan 16:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all - Deleting them now would set a bad precedent that if someone doesn't like an article, they can keep renominating it until they get the result they want.Sandmaster 20:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.