Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burundian Kowtowing Toady

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Burundian Kowtowing Toady

Article describes a species invented for unpublished Harry Potter fanfiction. I feel bad nominating it since it looks like a lot of work was involved in its creation and it follows the formatting rules, but it fails WP:NOT, and as such doesn't belong here. For this reason, Delete both the article and its related image file (Kowtowingtoady.jpg) Colin Kimbrell 20:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep: I disagree with the deletion nomination, for obvious reasons; being the author of an article will do that. That aside, however, I'd say that it is a relevant article. I quote from what I presume is the relevant section: "Original inventions. If you invent the word frindle or a new type of dance move, it is not article material until a secondary source reports on it." The Toady emerged through hubbub on a high-traffic fanfic site, and has been published on said site in - to my knowledge - at least two independent fics by different authors, not counting my own ones. In my view, this should qualify as "secondary sources", and also rejects the "unpublished fiction" criticism. The verifiability requirement is also satisfied, as the comment threads in which the Toady is discussed are easily available on the SIYE website.
    I also refer you to the article on Thestrals, which is in itself an original invention, albeit by a published author. Its main use by secondary sources is, of course, in Harry Potter fanfics. The fact that there have been no moves to delete this article suggests to me that similar articles are equally permissible.
    Supporting evidence of fanfics and pure-fanon inventions being permitted include Draco Dormiens and The Tale Of Westala and Villtin.
    If the motion to delete is carried, I request a 48-hour delay (on grounds of imminent travel) to allow me to comment on any counter-arguments and save a backup of the article on my home computer.
    - Torak 00:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    Don't worry, you get five days to make counterarguments. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 04:27Z
Comment:You could also keep a temporary copy on a subpage of your user page; it might be a good idea to do this, in case an admin decides to close the vote early. See Wikipedia:Subpages for details and instructions.-Colin Kimbrell 19:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Done, thanks for the idea.Torak 12:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment:Thanks for taking the time to come by and discuss this. I'm not sure that the precedents you cite are applicable in this case, in that they apply to specific works of fanfiction, rather than specific aspects of those individual works. It's also worth noting that The Very Secret Diaries (the redirect destination of Draco Dormiens) was nominated for AFD once (link) and closed with a 50/50 keep/delete split, and that many of the keep votes did so with the claim that it represented a "notable internet meme", a claim that probably would not apply to Burundian Kowtowing Toady. It is also unlikely that individual fanfiction stories would qualify as secondary sources, in that they are not themselves independent analyses of the Burundian Kowtowing Toady, or historical/media accounts of its creation. Rather, they are additional examples of primary sources.-Colin Kimbrell 19:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Two comments on this; in what way is an article about a single fanfic more eligible than an article about a single fanfic construct being used by multiple authors in multiple fics?
Secondly, as far as the other fics go, it's a bit hazy whether they're primary or secondary sources; parts have fed into the construction of the Toady, parts have featured the Toady based on its appearance in the original discussion thread, and there have even been a few meta references directly referencing its creation. Not sure if that has any bearing on it, just thought I'd fling that out there.
Torak 12:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • From the Fancruft page: "Well-referenced and well-written articles on obscure topics are from time to time deleted as well, but such deletions are highly controversial. It is also worth noting that many articles on relatively obscure topics are featured articles. Generally speaking, the perception that an article is fancruft can be a contributing factor in its deletion, but it is rarely the sole factor." Article has already been acknowledged to be well-written (Colin Kimbrell, "This article is well-written and formatted..."), and at least two external references exist.
    Original research does not apply, as the article documents the creature's inception over some time, including use prior to my own in several fanfics.
    - Torak 08:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into general article on HP fancruft -- SockpuppetSamuelson 09:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • That sounds like a good idea. Can't find an existing general article, though, but I like the idea of an article to collect a number of fanon creatures and things. Sounds like a plan. - Torak 10:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as fancruft, reluctantly. Stifle 15:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Since the article claims to release the Toady for use in other derivative works, can anyone here suggest an alternative project with a compatible license as a target for a Transwiki?-Colin Kimbrell 16:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete since, ultimately, this is a fictional add-on to a fictional universe - and this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm starting to see a pattern emerge here... ;-)
    Ah well, if it's got to go, it's got to go. But if there's any way to retain it - in any form - then obviously I'd like to do so. JzG, see my first post for examples of fictional components of fictional universes that have unchallenged articles. Colin, what's this Transwiki thing you mention? And would the "derivative works" thing have a bearing on the AFD nom if I removed it?
    Torak 11:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes when we get an article that's of value but not really encyclopedic, we decide to move it to a different wiki project, either affiliated with us or completely independent but with a compatible license. Dictionary definitions go to Wiktionary, how-to articles go to Wikibooks, non-notable webcomics go to Comixpedia, etc. This process is called transwikiing, and I was asking whether anybody knows of a wikiproject for stock fiction resources, since your article might be a good fit for such a project, if there is one. "Derivative work" is a legal term, which basically just means a creative project that incorporates aspects of some other preceding project, like a hip-hop producer who uses samples in a song or a cartoonist who draws a picture of the Mona Lisa sticking her tongue out. A Harry Potter fanfiction is a derivative work, since it uses characters and settings devised by J.K. Rowling. I mentioned it here because a sentence in your article released the Toady for use in derivative works, and I thought that might bolster a claim for a transwiki to the hypothetical source I described earlier. It's not likely to help or hurt your case for Wikipedia. -Colin Kimbrell 14:33, 13 January 2006 (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.