Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of published Oz apocrypha


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 09:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

List of published Oz apocrypha

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:IINFO / WP:OR. A list of non-canon Ozcruft. Brought here not least because one editor flatly refuses to countenance any article that does not include a long list of self-published books from various vanity presses, and expressed the view that if those were not included then the entire article should be deleted. The vast majority of these books are utterly non-notable, with no articles for the book, the author, often not even the publisher. Guy (Help!) 23:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller!  (distænt write)  23:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller!  (distænt write)  23:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom; the lead section simply explains the legal aspects of Oz fanfiction and does not indicate WP:LISTN. As far as I can tell, the only similar article is Jane Austen fan fiction, which does indicate WP:LISTN and is limited to sufficiently notable works. Also, the nom is right about the vast majority of list entries here being non-notable. Next up, List of Star Trek fan fiction. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 02:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep The L. Frank Baum page has constantly referenced the "cottage industry" of new Oz books, and there have been substantial articles written about the in The Baum Bugle, most notably by Steven J. Teller. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Mentions of the existence of a thing on a Wikipedia page, are not a qualifier for independent notability of that thing, still lest for long lists of examples of that thing, many of which are profoundly insignificant. Guy (Help!) 13:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * keep per Scottandrewhutchins: this is a highly studied, and examined fan culture. It would be appropriate to develop a list like this (though it should be refernced). However, quality of referencing isn't the standard for notability. Sadads (talk) 01:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Um, yes it is. Guy (Help!) 10:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm..., may-be you can expand on how to write an encyclopedic article in lack of any rel. sourcing? Eh! ~ Winged Blades Godric 08:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:LISTN. Almost no references or evidence of accuracy much less notability.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete--Per nom. ~ Winged Blades Godric 08:23, 9 February 2018 (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.