Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fiction that breaks the fourth wall (4th 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 all. Sr13 08:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

List of fiction that breaks the fourth wall (4th nomination)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)



Considering this is the fourth AFD nom, I'm going to summarize the points which have been mentioned previously:


 * Still fails to cite any soruces as required by WP:V / WP:ATT. Some users have argued that these are "easily verifiable" (as in: any example can be verified simply by observing the fiction in question), but that is not how WP:V is defined.  When all else fails users should at least cite the fiction itself as a source, but no one has taken time to do even that.


 * Fails WP:LIST; the membership criteria can be considered trivial, indiscriminate, or overly broad, because the criteria is not unambiguously defined. Editors have inserted and pruned entries to/from the list according to their own personal POV, whether they think a given example "really" meets the list criteria.


 * Attracts listcruft. This is far from a high-traffic list article, nonetheless the majority of its edit history consists of users adding and/or updating entries in the list.  And, again, without providing any sources.


 * No compelling arguments to Keep. Past arguments include:
 * Reader/editor interest -- in other words "I like it".
 * Requests for cleanup -- users claim it's easy to find references and address the core rationale for AFD, but no one has, the bulk of edits consist of expanding the list, still without citing any references.

In summary, and my own opinion on this matter, Delete all because after several months of various edits this article still has none of the required citations or references, the primary rationale for deletion has never been rebutted or addressed in the slightest, and (due to lack of editor involvement) probably never will. Arguments in favor of keeping don't hold water while arguments for deletion are solid, and with previous AFD's concluded as "keep" or "no consensus", it leaves me wondering if the closing admin called the result via counting hands instead of weighing arguments; after all, Wikipedia is not a democracy and neither is AFD. --Stratadrake 02:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * PS: At risk of WP:POINT, I'm going to italicize (rather than bold) any comments which fall under the criteria of arguments to avoid. --Stratadrake 03:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete While "per nom" is as bad as "I like it", you really can't expand on the nomination. Kudos. Will (talk) 03:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Just lists of loosely associated terms, fails WP:NOT by design. Jay32183 04:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete fails to cite any sources. Oysterguitarst 04:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete nomination is spot-on. These lists also risk arbitrariness per WP:LIST and cannot aspire to an encyclopedic standard. Eusebeus 08:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete excellent nominating statement. Some things can only dwell so long without being improved before they get deleted.  --Haemo 09:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Sufficient time has been given to clean this article up, to no avail. Wildthing61476 12:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - as noted, there has been plenty of time for the glaring problems with these lists to be addressed and those who passionately argued in favor of "keep and clean up" have not, as so often happens in these cases, followed through. Otto4711 13:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  Buck  ets  ofg  13:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per the same arguments I made in rounds 2 and 3. Sufficient examples already given at Fourth wall to illustrate the point and having the independent list article is a bad idea.  The other problems with this article are persistent and were not fixed after the first nom, or the second, or the third.  Calling for cleanup here is really no longer a valid argument.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I'm going to jump into the lion's mouth on this one. I'm more than happy to delete listcruft and clear violators of WP:NOT, but I'm not terribly sure that this is either. Each one of them is well put together to varying degrees, the only thing that is preventing me from changing my position to "keep" is the complete lack of sourcing and the fact that it absolutely reeks of WP:NOR violations. Trusilver 20:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Special:Whatlinkshere/Fourth wall is just as useful. --thedemonhog talk • edits 21:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * PITCH TILL YA WIN!!! Nominated in April2007 but not deleted.  Nominated in May2007 and not deleted.  Nominated again in July2007.  What is this, a carnival?  Maybe we're not supposed to assume bad faith, but I think we can make a case for it here with three nominations in four months.   If you can try to delete an article that frequently, I don't think it would be wrong to put it right back up within a month if you succeed on the third go round this year.  Mandsford 00:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What's your point? The article violates WP:NOT without a doubt. If closing admins had done their job and read the discussion rather than counting votes, the first discussion would have closed as delete. It's impossible to assume good faith from people who make there argument based on the procedure of the nomination rather than the state of the article relative to Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Jay32183 00:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all - Absolute failure of WP:LIST. -- Kesh 03:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Useful and no deficiencies that cannot be fixed.Legalbeagle001 17:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Being useful is not a valid reason to keep, and being an indiscriminate list of loosely related terms is not something that can be fixed. Jay32183 22:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment- WP:USEFUL doesn't say its not a valid inclusion reason, in fact it states the contrary (second paragraph). The important thing to do would be to establish its usefulness to an encyclopedia. Would people want to search by it? Does it make finding related information easier? In cases like those you can probably IAR to NOT, as long as its genuinely useful to an encyclopedia.  -wizzard2k  ( C - T - D ) 23:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:USEFUL says that being useful is not a valid argument to present in an AFD. Under no circumstances does WP:IAR apply to WP:NOT. WP:NOT is not a rule, it is a definition. WP:IAR is not a free pass to do whatever you want. Jay32183 00:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I still fail to see where WP:USEFUL says it is not a valid argument to present in an AfD. Its listed in arguments to avoid, but it also says "there are some times when "usefulness" can be at the base of a valid argument for inclusion." My point with IAR wasn't that we need to ignore something, but that if its found something is useful to the encyclopedia, it may be appropriate to ignore the rules/definition whatever you want to call it which excludes it. IAR is not a free pass, and should only be used for an action after careful consideration of the reasoning, which is all I was pointing out. If its useful to an encyclopedia, don't count it out because something else tells you that you generally should. This, however, is not a !vote for keeping or deleting, I'm merely trying not to rule out a possibility as suggested by the end of the intro at NOT. Indeed, without any discussion on WHY it might be useful, there's nothing to consider.  -wizzard2k  ( C - T - D ) 02:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:USEFUL outright says do not make the argument "Keep - useful". The person presenting that argument does not elaborate on how the article is useful, therefore, it is not a valid argument. Jay32183 02:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Fiction which "breaks the fourth wall" is as common as dirt and has been for many years. That makes such a list an arbitrary subset of a boundless set of instances, and thus an indiscriminate list. The selections also lack any secondary source to say that they are important examples of breaking the fourth wall, making their selection as examples original research. I like it, but it is not encyclopedic and can be deleted as WP:OR and as an indiscriminate list violating WP:NOT. Edison 23:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I bet many users would love knowing about all of anything "breaking the fourth wall" and adding new information as more shows, films, etc., does this sort of thing. Besides, this gag is always hilarious to me. --WikiPediaAid 02:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice sentiment, but that's just a rehashed "I like it" and "it's funny", neither of which are convincing arguments (go read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in AFD sometime) so you'll need a better reason than that. --Stratadrake 12:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that cameo instances of breaking the fourth wall are common. What about keeping just the entries where this property is an integral part of the story, like in Tony and Tina's Wedding? That should make it more encyclopedic, useful and manageable. And/or a remake into a category rather than a list? Gotyear 20:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A "category:fiction that breaks the fourth wall" would still be vaguely defined and overly broad. When it's an integral part of a fiction's narrative, will it not certainly be mentioned in the respective article?  --Stratadrake 03:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would be mentioned in the respective article, but I think an article or category that lists such works would have encyclopedic value. Category: Fiction which predominantly breaks the fourth wall. Specify the entry requirements in the intro. Gotyear 17:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps "Category:Fiction that involves breaking the fourth wall", where breaking the fourth wall is more than just a humorous gag. But this still leaves the problem of a clear criterion for inclusion, and since it's a category, it's hard to estimate whether it would be easier or more difficult to keep out the cruft, since using the fourth wall as a comedic gag is arguably overly broad or non-defining, two things to avoid per WP:OC. --Stratadrake 19:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 14:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 14:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per solid nom statement. --Quiddity 18:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. I don't buy any of the arguments for deletion.  Every entry on the list is in essence a citation.  Do we need to find someone who has written that "Kurt Vonnegut himself appears in the book Breakfast of Champions"?  To verify the information, get a copy of the book and it is obvious that Vonnegut appears in the book.  It is not original research to say so.  The fourth wall is an academically studied topic.  Having these lists are useful to the study of the topic.  Could the list be better, sure!  But I do not understand why people want to remove lists like these. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 22:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The original research isn't saying the works broke the fourth wall. The original research is claiming that the works are meaningfully connected to each because they broke the fourth wall. Jay32183 22:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sam, go read WP:CITE for examples on what constitutes a proper citation -- this list fails to have even one reliable citation. Secondary sources are preferred, but citing even a primary source (e.g. when, in George of the Jungle, Thor argues with The Narrator), is better than nothing; and despite three AFD nominations no one has done even that. Entries in the list have been added and pruned according to the personal POV of various editors, thus constituting "material which ... is believed to be the original thought of the Wikipedian who added it", a type of original research.  --Stratadrake 02:25, 8 July 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.