Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New sudden 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. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

New sudden fiction

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Two mens' theory about a "new and emerging" fiction genre. No obvious notability beyond their own book. Rather self-promoting. &mdash; e. ripley\talk 12:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but you're terribly mistaken. Who are the two men you're talking about? Robert Shapard and James Thomas? NO! They didn't write the article! Who wrote the article was me: José Flávio Nogueira Guimarães. Robert Shapard and James Thomas are notable university professors, PhDs, editors and literary critics. They are usually published by W.W. Norton & Company - a fine publishing house. You should read the article again. You must have just skimmed it. Maybe, you think they are not notorious because they are not in the Wikipedia; but I'm sorry to tell you that most notorious people, great scholars, do not even care about the Wikipedia; they might not even know what Wikipedia is. Robert Shapard and James Thomas are going to be in the Wikipedia VERY soon. Do not worry. Not only him but the great Danish Gitte Mose, too, who is quoted in my article Short-short story. Sorry if I was harsh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by José Flávio Nogueira Guimarães (talk • contribs) 12:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Rewrite. This appears to be a single, straightforward collection of short stories (a 2007 book titled "New Sudden Fiction", a sequel to "Sudden Fiction") rather than any sort of established or recognised genre. The thesis musings of a university student who considers "new sudden fiction" to be a literary genre fails WP:RS. --McGeddon (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It would perhaps be better if rewritten to focus on their book rather than trying to cast their book as shedding light on a nonexistent new genre of fiction writing, but even then I'm not sure the book would pass WP:NOTE. However it'd be a step in a better direction. &mdash; e. ripley\talk 13:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * RECOMMEND DELETE. My name is Robert Shapard, one of the co-editors of "New Sudden Fiction" published by W.W. Norton in 2007. We did not intend to create or attempt to create a new sub-genre of short-short fiction, via the title and introductory comments in the book. I wrote the introduction (my co-editor James Thomas, approved, as did our editor at Norton, Carol Houck Smith.) "New" is simply meant to identify the book as another--a sequel--in the series of "Sudden Fiction" books. My apologies to Jose Flávio Nogueira Guimaraes if the introduction was misleading; I am grateful for his interest. The introduction meant to say that in the first two books of the series the term "sudden fiction" covered short-short fiction of any length; a few years later the anthology "Flash Fiction," co-edited by James Thomas (and which I had an early part in) claimed short-short fictions under 750 words long. The next "Sudden Fiction" volume therefore collected stories longer than the "flash" length, and "sudden" became identified with "longer" short-short stories (!). So Mr. Nogueira Guimaraes is that the implied definition of the "sudden" length changed. But, again, there was no intention to create a new sub-genre. (The co-editors of both series have always been aware that we are not creators or controllers of sub-genres; writers will write what they will, and readers will call them what they like. We're observers and collectors and glad to help bring attention to the writers.) A last note: a new anthology, "Sudden Fiction Latino," edited by me, James Thomas, and Ray Gonzalez, has just been published by Norton--and the stories in it run from micro (under 250 words) to flash (250-750) to "longer" stories (750 up to as much as 2,000 words)--which brings "sudden" back to its old, all-inclusive stance.15:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)~  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertshapard (talk • contribs)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Those were your words on page 15 of the "editor's note" of "New Sudden Fiction: Short-Short Stories from America and Beyond". My view might not be adequate. I'm thousand of miles away from the U.S.A. and things happen very fast. I cannot follow such speed. Furthermore, I buy books on the amazon.com and they take 40 days to get to Brazil and as I've already said my time was limited to research and write my thesis. I apologize for the poor contribution. I'm sure an American will do better. I bet. Yes, I've seen the "Sudden Fiction Latino" at the amazon.com. Nevertheless, at the moment I'm preparing a research project for my Ph.D. and the field of study is very different. I'm researching in the field of Jewish Studies, homosexuality and Judaism. I've changed completely. Then feel free to delete everything I've written. I'm very sorry for attempting to help, Mr. Shapard. I'm not good enough, I'm not an American! And don't worry, I'll stick to the Brazilian sites. Moreover, my Ph.D. dissertation will be written in Portuguese; then there is no need for concern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by José Flávio Nogueira Guimarães (talk • contribs) 04:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  15:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * THANK YOU FOR YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO DELETION, MR. SHAPARD. This is José Flávio Nogueira Guimarães. I do not disagree with you nowhere. But you do call the short-short story a genre in the 2007 collection named "New Sudden Fiction: Short-Short Stories from America and Beyond," as well as in the "Flash Fiction Forward: 80 Very Short Stories" from 2006. In 1986 it was not called a genre and in the Afterwords of "Sudden Fiction: American Short-Short Stories" (which I read a dozen of times, the Afterwords)writers tried to define what this emerging type of fiction was. I understand and I agree 100% that nobody creates genres or sub-genres. I challenge you to read my thesis and understand my analyses and thoughts more fully. I am very well grounded theoretically. There is a link to it in the article new sudden fiction as well as in the article short-short story from Wikipedia. Anyway, if you type "The Short-Short Story: a New Literary Genre" at Google, you will find two links to it: one is from an office on higher research projects from the Education Department from the Brazilian government and the other is a Brazilian literary site where amateur writers and students post their creative and academic works. I do not believe the introduction of your book was misleading, but for the time I had and the material I had on my hands, I saw the "new sudden fiction" and the "flash fiction" as sub-genres of the short-short story since you and James Thomas "decided to search for a distinction within the GENRE (capitals are mine)...[and] split the child (sudden fiction) into two new children... "new" sudden fiction [and] flash...
 * delete still a neologism. It may become a received concept, but it is not yet.  DGG ( talk ) 02:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per the above. Agreed, the term may gain significance down the road, but it doesn't have that yet. The author (of the article, not the book) notes that the subject may become more notable soon, and that's great - when it does, a narrowly-tailored article backed by reliable sources might work. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 12:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete Non-notable neologism for short-short story. Article consists of original research based on a complete misunderstanding of the title of a work of short stories by someone so unfamiliar with the topic they think short-short stories are something new instead of a term that has been used for decades. Edward321 (talk) 00:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 *  Keep I'm so sorry for you. YOU'RE SO TERRIBLY MISTAKEN! I assure you I know much more about short-short stories than you. The term has been used for decades and some authors state the genre dates from the 19th century. It was the topic of my master's thesis. Why don't you read it before stating SUCH NONSENSE?!http://66.228.120.252/e-livros/2164970 I guarantee the Someone you refer to is much more knowledgeable on the short-short story than you. I challenge you to read his thesis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by José Flávio Nogueira Guimarães (talk • contribs) 06:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Please do not !vote twice. I would strike your second !vote (but not your comment) but the new setup doesn't seem to allow that anymore. BTW, how can you both claim this is a "new and emerging genre" and admit that "The term has been used for decades and some authors state the genre dates from the 19th century." Edward321 (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per DGG. -- Nuujinn (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2010 (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.