Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uberfic (2nd 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The result was Nomination withdrawn PeaceNT 09:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Uberfic

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article about a category of fanfiction. No reliable sources (WP:RS) for the article, fails WP:V and is original research (WP:NOR). Article was kept in a previous AfD and was later deleted by WP:PROD. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * KEEP. This article has already survived an deletion review on 20/09/05. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan D. Parshall (talk • contribs)
 * Yes, but all of the sources presented in that AfD were fanfic sites; none were reliable sources. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 08:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * KEEP per previous afd. Mark talk page so it doesn't get deleted again. Nardman1 08:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is still unsourced original research. Where exactly are the reliable sources covering the use of this word? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 08:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The application of WP:V has changed considerably since 2005; AFDs from that period make poor precedent.  The article does not cite reliable sources, and, moreover, does not address the demands of WP:NEO.  A merge to Fan fiction terminology is also a possibility, although given the state of that article, such a course of action may just be postponing matters.  Serpent&#39;s Choice 08:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - as Serpent's Choice. --Linear Model 08:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Linear Model is new created vandal account. Hevesli 20:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Nardman1 Tuvok  ^ Talk 09:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Serpent's Choice, neologism with no proven notability outside of forums and fanfiction websites. No reliable sources; one of the sources cited is the one that claims to have invented the term. Krimpet 10:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * How does that automatically disqualify it? Would an article by Steven Colbert which inlcuded the claim to have invented the word truthiness not be okay? —Jonathan D. Parshall (Talk | contribs) 10:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Truthiness was also the Merriam-Webster word of the year, the American Dialect Society word of the year, and was directly addressed on network television and in The New York Times. As of this comment, the truthiness article has 41 sources, many of which are from major newspapers and news services.  That is substantially different from posts on forums, blogs, and fanfic sites without editorial control; the distinction is an essential part of the Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources. Serpent&#39;s Choice 10:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Notability proven by two sources added to article &mdash;siro&chi;o 16:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. No evidence from reliable sources that WP:NEO is met, nn neologism, 879 non-wiki ghits. MER-C 10:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Notability proven by two sources added to article &mdash;siro&chi;o 16:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable genre of fanfic. Mathmo Talk 11:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per NeoChaosX and Serpent's Choice. This is silly. JuJube 13:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Silly is not a reason for deletion, and notability is now proven by two sources added to article. &mdash;siro&chi;o 16:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Do everyone a favor and don't nitpick. My vote says "Delete per NeoChaosX and Serpent's Choice", not "delete because it's silly". JuJube 00:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Googling for "uberfic" won't find everything because it's more often just "uber". There are several good sources for its existence: a Genders article; an article from Reason (magazine); and a paper in the Journal of Science and Technology Law.  Those just give dictionary definitions, but there's more in this master's thesis and quite a bit more in this doctoral dissertation -- the only diss I've ever encountered that has annoying background music, but authenticable by following the breadcrumbs from here.
 * I list all these sources because they may meet some people's keep criteria. My own !vote is for a merge to Über, where there's already a short section on the term's use in fanfiction.  &mdash;Cel  ithemis  14:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It may make more sense to minimize the piece in Uber and move most of it to this article (assuming it is now kept due to sourcing), as that has little to do with that article a whole. &mdash;siro&chi;o 16:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I can't seem to find a mention of uberfic in either one of the thesises you've supplied. Searching for "uberfic" or "Überfic" in the pdf of the Master's thesis comes up with nothing (mind pointing to specific page it's on?) and while I admire the reason the doctorate thesis is laid out the way it is, I can't seem to find a mention of the term in it. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Scratch that; found couple paragraphs about uberfic in the master's thesis. Almost there; if there is something about uber fic in the doctorate thesis, I'd be willing to withdraw the nomination (since there would be multiple independent reliable sources). NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the dissertation is hard to navigagte. The direct link is here; it's definitely a nontrivial discussion.  &mdash;Cel  ithemis  22:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. If it's been discussed in two peer-reviewed thesises, I can't argue against that. Withdraw nomination, but this article definately needs some major work to intergrate these sources into the article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete non encyclopedic. --MaNeMeBasat 15:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you mean non-notable or non-verifiable, notability proven by two sources added to article (thereby verifying &mdash;siro&chi;o 16:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep two three independent nontrivial reliable sources added, so it satisifes N reqs. &mdash;siro&chi;o 16:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Simply because an article managed to "survive" a previous vote does not give it immunity from deletion forever; such arguments are ridiculous. In any case, I would like to point out that the previous vote was 2 - 2, hardly a landslide decision. "three independent nontrivial reliable sources added"? Hardly. A local newspaper and a magazine are not really nontrivial reliable sources. Try NYT or Time magazine or something with substance. In any case, any good article can be backed up by much more than three sources. Hobbeslover talk/contribs 19:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * keep please per siroxo there are multiple sources for it yuckfoo 21:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep it has references now. Reason magazine is a reliable source. - Peregrine Fisher 00:06, 5 February 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.