Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Story canon


 * 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. Clear consensus here that this should not remain in its current form. No consensus on the redirect, so I'm not going to implement that, but anybody is free to create the redirect on their own if they feel it's appropriate. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Story canon

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Complete OR. No sources, and no use of this term found in any search whatsoever. Made up term to explain a practice used in film pitches (the whole "it's X meets Y" setup), but there is no actual term for that, let alone this totally made up one that utterly misuses other terms to create a bogus neologism. And when I say bogus, I mean that there is literally no source using this term anywhere I could find. Wikipedia is not for stuff just made up one day. oknazevad (talk) 06:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * DELETE Canon (fiction) already exists on wikipedia but this article really is not talking about the same thing. This article seems to be Original research and speculation i did brief search no sources found if someone can present multiple sources will reconsider my decision thanks Sassmouth (talk) 09:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: Misleading title, unreferenced, and (in my opinion) untrue. '''- Je rg li ng ''' PC Load Letter 18:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, even speedily, as erroneous original research. The it's "X meets Y" pitch is not a "story canon," as a Gbooks search quickly reveals. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Canon (fiction) as a valid search term. ansh 666 19:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Change to redirect. Right, good point: a big part of the problem with this erroneous bit of OR is that it is a valid search term. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure. It doesn't seem to be a common construction of the words. That is to say, every search I've looked at while doing the WP:BEFORE for this AFD only uses the words in this order where it's not a noun phrase where "canon" is the noun and "story" the adjective. The other way around (a "canon story"), yes, but not this wording; this wording only seems to appear in questions where adjectival order is usually reversed (such as the question "is this story canon?") That said, a redirect is not the worst result just as long as it removes this terrible pile of bogus OR. oknazevad (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If you check the Gbooks results you'll see enough results for "story canon" as a phrase. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but looking at those, it's almost all as part of phrases like "short story canon", refering to an academic canon of standard works (like the Shakespeare canon or the standard operatic canon), not to the concept of fictional canon, and, more importantly, not as this title alone, but part of a larger phrase. oknazevad (talk) 21:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2016 (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.