Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Examples of meta-references in 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. Neil ☎ 09:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Examples of meta-references in fiction

Examples of meta-references in fiction (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete - see also this AFD for several similar lists. All of the same reasons those articles were deleted apply to this list as well. indiscriminate collection of loosely and unassociated items, completely unreferenced and chock-full of original research. Otto4711 13:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per above. STORMTRACKER 94 13:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Okay, the article doesn't explain it, but a "meta reference" is when characters in a television show acknowledge that they are in a television show. We didn't know that's what it was called, although it's an element of a drinking game based on Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. This one is a list of every time it was noticed by the author or authors, which is semi-interesting, but still original research. While "merge" might be a solution, the authors are handicapped by the need to quote long blocks of dialogue so that we can enjoy the "inside joke", and look at "examples" as everything, rather than as a handful of representative for-instances. If the vote is to keep, do the readers a favor and put in a damn definition of "meta reference". Mandsford 14:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• comment. Done. Benjiboi 12:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• As the nominator of the other AFD I have to agree here, so Delete. The list is "interesting" but a textbook example of an example-farm (and Wikipedia is not David Letterman). There are already sufficient examples under meta-reference to explain the concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stratadrake (talk • contribs) 14:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete For encyclopedic coverage, fiction articles should link to Meta-reference to explain the concept, and not the other way around. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per recent precedents and nominator's reasoning. /Blaxthos 19:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This nomination is a textbook example of the pedantry which is rendering Wikipedia increasingly less valuable by the day. The article is for the most part accurate, most entries carry the requisite citations (or advert explicitly to the media in which they can be found) and adds to the store of human knowledge (which is the raison d'etre of any encyclopaedia.) Mandsford - no offence, but the apparent obsession with "original research" evident in your contribution baffles me; will people like you be happy until Wikipedia articles consist of a list of links and citations to other encyclopaediae, publications, periodicals and databases? This nomination is a test case on the future of Wikipedia; the article, while requiring a certain amount of maintenance, represents many of the factors which make Wikipedia a worthwhile proposition. Lose it, and we may as well pull the shutters down for good. DublinDilettante 20:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

  Response Dublin, I can appreciate your frustration with the prohibition against "original research", particularly since we have so many idiotic articles about TV episodes and characters and other crap that violates the OR rule. Someday, I hope that garbage is gone, but for some reason, nobody nominates that stuff. The first time I ever encountered AfD was after I had written a wonderful article "proving" a published statement by a film buff that a majority of movie scripts include the hackneyed line "Let's get out of here!" Part of my inspiration was in seeing an article about an episode of Smallville, and I figured, if crap like that makes it into Wikipedia, why can't my idea get in there too? It was entertaining, well-written, and a semi-original concept for an article... but it was "original research" (and no, reading movie scripts on imsdb.com didn't change anything). The problem with writing an article based on what you've observed personally, other than its unacademic nature, is it tends to become a bulletin board for everyone else has observed personally. Please note that Wikipedia offers a rare opportunity to have your work "published" before a decision is made to accept it or reject it. Everywhere else in publishing, most submissions never see the light of day. Remember, being on Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. Mandsford 00:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: Does the reader really need this (majorly incomplete) list of 164 examples to understand what a meta-reference is? And if the wikipedian adding an entry to this list labels something as a meta-reference without backup by a reliable source - isn't that exactly what constitutes OR? – sgeureka ^t•c 21:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
    • The anti-OR policy was introduced to prevent people from presenting dubious scientific research, phrases they'd coined themselves, etc. It is not necessary to delete an article like this because of the no original research policy, because these examples are clearly within the definition of a meta-reference (and if some of them are more dubious, they should just be removed from the list). 96T 22:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't presume to comment on what the reader "needs", nor do I see the relevance of this list's partial nature. Do we call an arbitrary halt to List of battles because it's never going to be exhaustive and anyway, we get the point? If you have a problem with the veracity or reliability of any given entry, by all means modify or remove it. Personally I have more faith in the intellectual capabilities of both readers and editors to make a judgement on a rather well-defined literary device without recourse to citations. If I wish to state that 2 + 2 = 4 in an article, do I need to cite the published opinion of an eminent mathematician or can I simply use my calculator (or, heaven forfend, my brain?) Although it could do with some more context and a polish, the article is useful, informative, entertaining and factual. I'd question whether anyone who can't see the value of this article belongs on Wikipedia at all. DublinDilettante 22:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
      • WP:OR, apart from the intro sentence, mentions that "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source. Examples of primary sources include [...] artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs." And this list of meta-references is exactly that: interpretation of primary sources => OR (though harmless). But that's not really my main argument. (1) As this list is called "Examples of...", and since an example is "something that serves to explain or illustrate a rule," I doubt that it takes 164 instances to explain or illustrate the concept of meta-references to the reader until he gets it - less than a dozen will surely do, and those can be covered in the main article. (2) There is no reason to believe that 164 entries will be the end of this list. If it wasn't WP:POINTY, I'd just dump an earlier version of the Stargate SG-1 episode "200" into this article, as these 45 minutes of television are one big meta-reference. Should I? - No. Could I? - According to your arguments, yes. WP:IINFO problems. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Do it if you want. It would get reverted very quickly, as would any frivolous entry which didn't accord with common sense. There's nothing in this article a reasonably intelligent user wouldn't instantly infer from a cursory perusal of the examples cited. Wikipedia policies are not irrefragable articles of faith which must be observed to the very letter, and particularly not to one user's interpretation of that letter. Common sense dictates that this article must stay; if that's not good enough for you, try WP:IAR. DublinDilettante 01:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
          • There aren't many frivolous entries in the old "200" articles that don't accord with common sense, especially now that I actually sourced some as meta-references per the producers (60% ?). And this signifies the problem again: 40% of the old "200" entries are still unsourcable (and probably will always be, so I deleted most of them as OR), and this meta-references list is indiscriminate if it gives no particular reason to prevent the addition of dozens of (sourced!) meta-references from a 45 minute TV episode. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep this is clearly notable material. it needs citations, so mark that it needs citations. most of the argument above seems to be 'needs improvement' so give it time to improve, two or three more years should be adequate.--Buridan 20:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Notability cannot be confirmed without having reliable sources to cite. Most of the websites in which you're likely to find this sort of coverage are user-contributed (specifically failing RS criteria), leaving the article's notability in doubt. --Stratadrake 23:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, this list is of much higher quality than the lists that use to get deleted, and it is a nice supplement to the meta-reference article. 96T 22:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, because comprehensive articles such as this one provide handy reference tools for anyone reseaching meta-references in fiction. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Pointless listcruft. Are "meta-references" as a concept notable, sure. But not a list of every time that one has occured. Simply not needed on an encyclopedia. Dannycali 03:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Secondary sources are good. No secondary sources is bad. Massive, unmaintainable, unlimited, uncitable outside of primary sources "spot the breaking of the fourth wall" lists are also bad. Personally, I won't be happy till all articles on fiction cite secondary sources. --Phirazo 03:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Indiscriminate list of loosely associated topics. This list could potentially list thousands of unrelated shows, films, and songs. "Your Song", "You're So Vain", "Song For Whoever", those three songs took me 10 seconds to think of, and there are hundreds more. Listing them, or others, isn't encyclopedic. Crazysuit 04:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep If the works are notable, the self-references are notable. Just as plot can be sourced directly, so can this. I have seen the phrase "Indiscriminate list of loosely associated topics." used repeated for every possible sort of article listing creative works except for those by an author--there are other things that are also important. The use of a fictional technique is a clearly discriminating factor and a close association. List of episodes 24 minutes long--that would be my example of a loose association. Perhaps someone who uses that phrase will give some examples of what they consider tight associations so we can discuss our differences. I've asked before--there has never been a reply. I wonder if the phrase is being used with any meaning at all.

By no means all fictional works contain these references. WP is not paper, and if the list is long, it can be organized. But can someone here possibly deal with this by finding an academic article discussing the subject, which will certainly source a few examples in what some people here think the only acceptable fashion. They may be wrong as a matter of current policy, and also about what the current policy ought to be--stating the obvious is not OR--but we might as well satisfy every possible objection.DGG (talk) 04:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• A two hour movie with a three second moment in which a character says a line to camera is not closely associated with a 30 minute TV show with a three second moment in which a character says a line to camera or a four hour stage play in which a character has an aside to the audience. "A line is spoken toward the audience" is not a theme. Otto4711 12:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• of course neither being a particular sexuality a theme or a relationship of any sort, nor are 99% of associative properties a theme. This one is fairly strong in association, 'people performing a theoretically signficant action' which is easily comparable to people having a sexuality.--Buridan 14:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• The first part of your argument is nothing more than WP:WAX and so merits no further response. The second part is, for all intents and purposes, made up out of whole cloth and in claiming that these are examples of "theoretically significant actions" smacks of original research and POV. Otto4711 15:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• the argument is that the pov is separating one article of type x from another article of type x, people don't like 'in popular culture' but they do like 'sexual preferences' so the categories used to dismiss in popular culture are not used to dismiss sexual preferences. that is pov and/or systematic bias. as for theoretically significant actions, i could probably find many thousands of citations that finds meta-references to be theoretically significant, but all i meant by it was notable and since there is already an article, it is by definition notable. theoretical significance is just 'notability' to a specific community, which if the community is large enough to be represented on wp, tends not to be deleted. --Buridan 16:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• There are plenty of people who don't like articles relating to sexual orientation, as evidenced by the constant vandalism of such articles and the occasional deletion attempt. What many people find unencyclopedic (or if you insist, "do not like") are endless lists of every single time someone says "Foo" on TV or there's a "Foo" in a movie or someone uses the word "Foo" in a song lyric, bunged together and presented as some sort of fait accompli attestation of the notability of "Foo in popular culture." Of the many, many IPC-style articles that have been deleted, I'm aware of very few to no editors who don't believe that the topic of the references is notable. The notability of the thing the references are about does not mean that a list of every single example of that thing is notable or encyclopedic. I don't understand why it's so difficult to separate "Foo" from "mentions of Foo" but it seems to be terribly confusion for a lot of people. In this instance, no one is disputing that the topic "Meta-reference" is notable as a technique of fiction. That does not translate into encyclopedicness for a list of every example of a meta-reference. Otto4711 17:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

no, not every single reference, but it does translate into notable references. this contains some of those. those are encyclopedic. I could probably wander over to the library and find an encyclopedia or major reference work that lists a few. the beauty of wikipedia... is that we do not have to list merely a few, as we are not limited by production costs. but there are notable materials, and encyclopedic materials in this list. in that they are in this list, this list along with the concept that it helps to enlighten does make this list notable. --Buridan 20:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That is remarkably similar to one of the examples given in Wikipedia:Listcruft, "List of songs containing the sound of a woodpecker", as the sound of a woodpecker is not a notable means for selecting and organizing a list of items that are not otherwise related. --Stratadrake 12:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Obviously well-intended effort at presenting an intellectual device by examples only. Article should be a bit better organized and needs work but hardly reason for deletion and I will add my voice to those who question why the need to delete items that seem trivial on the surface but are certainly of interest to many. Every list started out needing regular editing and every list most likely still gets nonsense added that has to be pruned away - hardly reasons for deletion. Fix through regular editing and perhaps when everyone only writes in perfect encyclopedic prose we can call it a day. Until then consider fixing articles not destroying the obvious hard work other volunteers have put into building them. Benjiboi 12:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Of interest to many is not a good argument. Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to be popularity contests. There are I'm sure tens or hundreds of thousands of articles that hold no interest for you whatsoever. If "of interest to many" is a valid reason for keeping then "of interest to few" becomes a valid reason for deleting. Do you want to go down that road? As for the work put into articles, it is indeed unfortunate when people spend time on articles that are unsuitable but the amount of effort expended on an unsuitable article doesn't make the article any mroe suitable. Again, if "people put a lot of work into it" becomes a valid reason for keeping then "no one's working on it" becomes a valid reason for deletion. And no one expects that every article will instantly be written in perfect encyclopedic prose. That's just a silly thing to say to shore up weak argumentation. Otto4711 16:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete a perfect example of the type of list we don't want. Vague, long, totally unreferenced. Another endless list.

Ridernyc 17:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• delete- for all the above criticisms, just a stupid list.JJJ999 00:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment stupid in what way? Its a notable concept with notable examples. I thus interpret stupid to mean that you think it was not done well enough. Like all WP articles, it needs some editing. The appropriate response to an imperfect article is to do the work to improve it. DGG (talk) 01:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • You know perfectly well what I mean, because you also know perfectly well the way I vote in almost all "list" votes. This is an endless and arbitrary list, which is unecessary and the same anti-list arguments apply to it.JJJ999 02:51, 22 October 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.