Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living Like a Disaster

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. --Titoxd(?!?) 00:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Living Like a Disaster

Resident Evil fancruft. Delete. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 00:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete delete, nn online fanfic. MCB 00:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, fanfic belongs on fanfic websites, not in an encyclopedia. --Stormie 01:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete agree w/ MCB & Stormie.—Gaff ταλκ 03:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete fanfiction isn't encyclopedic. It looks like a Mary Sue as well. The number of reviews cannot be a measure for popularity. As those are too easily faked. - Mgm|(talk) 08:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Retain It would be hypocritical to delete this page when other major members of other online communities such as Leeroy Jenkins of World of Warcraft have entries to their names. I dislike the notion of commericiality as a tiebreaker for encyclopaedic worthiness(if a printed novel had less readers than this, how would that fare?), especially on a donation-based site such as this. Disagree with comment about reviews; It does not attempt to link reviews with popularity, but the reviews have elevated it within a very large online community. The article is not written by the authors of the fiction. Moreover, it is a humorous novel based on the authors above all else, and is no more a Mary Sue(i.e. Hollow characters) than a Marx Brothers film. Finally, criticising the literature as a Mary Sue does not affect the legitimacy of the article ~Inkstersco 10:37 Oct 27
  • Comment But where does one draw the line? Obscurity? Look at the scope of the articles on various Resident Evil characters, for example. It's not a vanity page, for the author of the story is not that of the page. Accuracy? I'm sure it bears some investigation. Otherwise, do we set the ball of deletion rolling on, say, late night 1950s Belgian TV adverts? ~Inkstersco
  • Delete I agree that it's NN fanfiction. PJM 11:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN fancruft. - Just zis Guy, you know? 14:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. --Holderca1 18:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN fancruft. ridiculous. Newyorktimescrossword 04:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


comment article is an orphan.Geni 13:03, 28 October 2005 (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.