Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fiction that breaks the fourth wall (Second 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 Keep. Cúchullain t/ c 03:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

List of fiction that breaks the fourth wall

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Kept by Articles for deletion/List of fiction that breaks the fourth wall. The topic of "breaking the fourth wall" is encyclopaedic, and discussed at fourth wall. Undoubtedly that topic is well served by including some examples. But... Is this list, which is made up of notable examples of drmatic irony intermingled with things that some editor thinks are significant examples of breaking the fourth wall, but in many cases lack a source to support the latter let alone the former, the way to achive that? At the last AfD A Man In Black suggested merging the truly notable examples (maybe those that are cited in standard texts as notable examples) into fourth wall; this would get rid of the unreferenced and in some cases blatantly promotional and/or original research, which would be fine, and that is an editorial decision. However, this is a biggish decision (the list has been around for a while) so I bring it here for more input. Guy (Help!) 09:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as an indiscriminate list and directory seeking to capture every instance of a character's breaking the fourth wall or every instance that in the unsourced POV/OR opinion of a random editor appears to be breaking the fourth wall with no regard to the importance or unimportance of the breakage. Trivia magnet. Oppose merging any of the content into fourth wall as it will invite editors to post their own pet examples, leading to another mass of trivia which will throw that article completely out of balance. There are already a few examples in the article and no need for more. Otto4711 12:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Adding support for the deletion of the additional articles listed below. It's early enough in the nomination that I feel it's OK that the similar articles were bundled in. Otto4711 17:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Okay, I can see the point of some of the keep !votes in the prior AfD, in saying that having some examples of the fourth wall being broken is appropriate to the subject.  However I feel that adequate examples are given over the course of that article, and creating an indiscriminate list of every time it happens is going way overboard.  No need to keep, and no need to merge it back in to the parent article and just clutter it up.  A r k y a n  &#149; (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wikipedia has recently started some kind of adversion to popular culture lists. I agree with the deletion of List of signature phrases and List of sets of unrelated songs with identical titles as their contents were, in fact, completely trivial and of no actual use. But this list serves a more useful purpose because of the many different ways the fourth wall can be broken. J I P  | Talk 16:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason that so many pop culture articles have been deleted lately is that by and large the pop culture articles are terrible. Otto4711 17:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If that's the case then they should be reinstated because quality of an article or lack thereof is not a criteria for deletion. It is a criteria for improvement. 23skidoo 18:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Feel free to take it to WP:DRV. Otto4711 18:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * * The deletion or lack thereof of other articles really has no bearing on this particular AfD. Tarinth 19:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - What the length of these lists shows is that this is an common technique. Indeed, in animated cartoons it is used routinely; for instance, in the sublist List of animated series that break the fourth wall, the entry for Animaniacs says "Numerous characters break the fourth wall," which is true, because it happens in basically every show. So I am adding all the sublists to this nomination:
 * List of animated series that break the fourth wall
 * List of theatre that breaks the fourth wall
 * List of films that break the fourth wall - this list is so long that it has an alphabetic index!
 * List of video games that break the fourth wall

A few examples, particularly historically important cases, should remain in the article. But these days it seems that most comedies use this technique, so the fact of using it has become conspicuously non-notable. - Mangoe 16:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know that it's proper to add articles to this AfD while it is underway, but would support deletion of the four listed as well.  A r k y a n  &#149; (talk) 17:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep on the basis that the article went through a peer review and it was not deleted then, and I consider the subject matter to be encyclopedic. 23skidoo 18:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If by "peer review" you mean the AFD from a year and a half ago, consensus can change and over-reliance on previous outcomes may indicate a lack of critical thinking. Otto4711 19:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - the list is well annotated and organized, which is required for WP:LIST. The content illustrates examples of an encyclopedic articles. Tarinth 18:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The previous nomination for deletion was made in November 2005. The article has been edited some 1470 times since then, which works out to over three changes a day. This article is a fancruft magnet, and indeed in the last RfD one of the participants indicated that as part of its intent. It's all original research anyway, as evidenced by the total lack of any citations stating that what goes on in any of these works does in fact break the fourth wall. It's just a lot of editors, on their own authority, saying that what goes on in such and such a show/film/game/whatever fits the definition. Mangoe 19:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean. It should be obvious that a character in fiction admitting he/she is in fiction constitutes breaking the fourth wall. Therefore, it is the same as citing that the act breaks the fourth wall. It does not cite the act actually happened, but for that, we would need to be able to cite every act in fiction, which would require us to reference the actual works, which are under copyright, and often very carefully guarded. J I P  | Talk 20:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the article fourth wall itself lacks any citations, so a reasonable person (or a wikipedia attribution stickler) could object that it cannot be used as a basis for "obvious" identification of examples. I personally think the application of the term to video games is questionable, since by their nature they require interaction with the "audience". One might also ask whether interaction with the audience as if they were part of the fiction qualifies. The point is not that we can't say what happens in the film/etc., but that we can't be sure that a theater professional/critic would so identify it. And if it is so obvious, then it's hard to see why we should need what is turning into an exhaustive list. Mangoe 21:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In video games, there is a distinction between the game play and the game's plot. Of course in Pac-Man there is no plot to speak of, so therefore no fourth wall. But the situation is different in more complex games. The best examples are adventure games. What you are doing is moving a mouse cursor around and making an on-screen sprite travel to where you clicked. What you are pretending to do is saving a princess from an evil dragon, going undercover to foil a terrorist organisation's plot, or captaining a starship in an interstellar war. A notice popping up saying "Please insert disk 2" is not breaking the fourth wall. The beautiful princess asking "Weren't you the one who saved me in the last game? You looked much more pixellated then." is. In contrast to the good old days, when a 20-year-old could write a well-selling platformer in his bedroom in a week, nowadays when games have enough scriptwriting and real-life acting to be small movies, the element of the plot is even more important. J I P  | Talk 17:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe, maybe not, but in any case your argument here is original research, and about all does, juxtaposed with my doubts, is provide sufficient evidence that identification of video game interaction as fourth-wall-breakage isn't obvious. So now we need a citable reference which addresses the issue, rather than just piling examples into the list. Mangoe 19:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Looks like a useful list. I agree it seems like original research tho, so it should be tagged as unreferenced and perhaps pruned back to those for which citations can be found. --J2thawiki 19:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, looks like a useful list, but isn't, as it's unsourced despite previous deletion nomination, potentially boundless (depending on whose definition you use) and the encyclopaedic purpose would be better served by a very sort list of those examples deemed notable by scholarly sources. This is just a list of things which some editor, who may or may not have a good understanding of the base concept, wants to add to a list. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

All the same observations apply to it. Mangoe 19:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Another list, for some reason not connected directly to these:
 * List of television programs that break the fourth wall
 * Keep, case of "not paper", but please require independent sourcing for each and every entry in the list. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 23:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that WP:NOT is not a get out of jail free card for articles. If an article otherwise fails policy or guidelines, NOT#PAPER does not save it. Otto4711 01:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that WP:NOT#Indiscriminate is not a get into jail card for articles. There is nothing indiscriminate about this list if properly sourced, as I suggested. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In practice, most of WP:NOT is reason to keep or delete articles. But in the case of lists, indiscriminate is more of a reason to clean up, IMO; only inherently indiscriminate, unmaintainable, or trivial lists (e.g. Articles for deletion/List of virgins) make it a reason for deletion, and whether or not this article is inherently such is an open matter.  --Stratadrake 12:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep If the original research is violated, check TV.com and similar sites with quotes sections and stuff. Matty-chan 02:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, but cleanup and prune the list. I've already suggested guidelines on the Talk pages for determining what should be listed (agreeing that the fourth wall is a very common device and that alone is not discriminating enough for a good list article). Citing is always an issue, but not always a criterion for deletion (certainly not every article containing unreferenced or the like should be AFD'ed). I'm for pruning out all trivial examples from the list to leave just a manageable sum of good entries demonstrating specific instances of breaking the fourth wall, and if we can merely restrict the list to that (citing where possible) and monitor the itemcreep, then we should be able to merge the sublists back to the main list, and that is enough. --Stratadrake 02:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it will be possible to cite most of these as to whether the stated action occurs. I think it will be a lot harder to cite experts pointing each specific example as a case of breaking the fourth wall, and that's the kind of citation that is necessary. Mangoe 12:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Citing a secondary source is preferred, of course, but citing the primary source is an option so long as what is referenced or quoted is a clear and solid example and does not require further explanation or analysis (i.e. original research) to support it. --Stratadrake 23:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The list itself is encyclopaedic; as for there being too many non-notable entries... well, I'd say that if a book, (web)comic, movie or whatever is notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia article, then they're also notable enough to be included in this list (assuming that they actually do break the fourth wall, of course). -- Schneelocke 14:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's rather like saying that because car models are notable, it would be reasonable to have "List of automobiles with MacPherson struts". The thing is that MacPherson struts are exceedlingly common, to the point of ubiquity. The same thing seems to be true of breaking the fourth wall, at least if you believe these lists. Mangoe 14:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Trivial entries are a major issue with this sort of list. I've already pruned out a large number of examples like "something hits the 'screen' and bounces off during a video game". --Stratadrake 23:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * For once, I have to agree with A Man in Black. Merge the most notable incidents and either delete or put the others on the programs' main pages. WAVY 10 15:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, that is a good idea, or similar pages, like with the Team Rocket (anime). Matty-chan 17:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. First, I don't see a rationale for why this should be deleted.  The nominator seems to have an issue with quality of the article.  Second, Otto471 argues indiscriminate list.  Sorry, but this article has a solid basis for inclusion as breaking the fourth wall.  Hardly indiscriminate in my book.  Cburnett 00:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Arkyan's point is extremely sound: Fourth wall includes sufficient examples to explain the concept, and the development of breaking it, for readers. This article is indiscriminate. Most of the examples, unlike the ones in Fourth wall, seem to have been picked entirely at random, and are unreferenced. So far as I can see, this list does not seem to fulfill any of the purposes of lists, and as Lists (stand-alone lists) says, "lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value". This list has no encyclopedic value. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:33, 4 April 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.