Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tales of MU
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 was trainwreck Will (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Tales of MU
 |
ATTENTION!
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}} |
- – (View log)
The Tales of MU Wikipedia article consists mainly of simple plot summaries, and furthermore does not refer to reliable sources outside of itself and its own websites. Mriako (talk) 11:58, 4 January 2008 (Updated by Mriako, who made a mistake when typing and unintentionally referred to the Wiki instead of the article)
- This article seems to be nothing more than an advertisement for web content, whose own webpage, interestingly enough, contains a section instructing its readers to virally market the story contained therein. This article would seem to be simply an extension of that tactic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.15.148 (talk • contribs) 2008-01-04 05:06:06
- Anyone who actually read the website would know that the above thinly-veiled accusation is false, as the author had nothing to do with the creation of the wiki entry. Cromage (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, the author of the webpage not only didn't encourage this wikipedia article but has actively discouraged people from bothering try to put her into a non-notable, non-credible "source" like Wikipedia through her own blog and while she pointed out this undoutedly briefly-lived article in a post on Tales of MU titled "Blink and you'll miss it", she did so only as a matter of interest. My viral marketing campaign wouldn't be half as successful as it was if it depended on capturing the attention of an institution like Wikipedia which is engaged in slow ritual suicide, eternally seeking to shed its credibiilty with the people most inclnied to trust it in Quixotic pursuit of academic respectability. Seriously, look at the stance here: nothing is notable if it's in a source that's online where anybody can post? Really shooting yourself in the foot there, Wikitards. Ten years from now, people will still read my stories but nobody'll read Wikipedia except the community of people who treat it as a game/chatroom/fiefdom. Talk to me about notability then, and for the love of all that's holy and most things that aren't, get this article out of here. 72.213.46.52 (talk) 06:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC) (Alexandra Erin)
- There you have it, folks. The author herself (himself, if another contributor to this discussion is to be believed?) doesn't even want this article here. She's too good for us. But of course the fanboys and -girls aren't going to care about the author's wishes, in true fanboy/girl tradition. They won't respect the author's wishes, or the Wikipedia guidelines, or the relevant facts of the matter. All they care about is getting an article about their favorite novelty story enshrined among the actual worthwhile knowledge contained on Wikipedia, so they can point to it and claim it's worthwhile too. It's very interesting to look at the blog entry directing them to this page, and see the responses to it. The prevailing theme is the standard party line of anti-Wikipedia hypocricy: "Yeah, Wikipedia sucks because its guidelines are too strict, but I'll keep using it for research anyway because it's just so darn useful!" Well, people, that's what Wikipedia is for: RESEARCH. It's an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Until there are people who don't know much about this story and want to research it and find out about it, there's no need for it to be here. And that's not going to happen until the story is well-known enough that people have heard about it a few times without having actually been to the website. In other words, as another editor has repeatedly stated, (and been repeatedly ignored for stating,) when it becomes culturally relevant, then it will have a place here. Those who claim otherwise simply don't understand what Wikipedia is, and what it is not.207.176.6.60 (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- What the fans want, or think of Wikipedia (or for that matter, what the author herself thinks of the debate, as long as it does not violate the rights over her work) is irrelevant to this discussion on deletion. What matters is the claim of cultural relevance (which has been ignored since it was poorly defined). The fact of the matter is, many people *do* want to research about the story without having read it previously, and I'm curious as to how you believe otherwise. The readerbase for the story grows daily, so it is perfectly logical to assume that not only are people hearing about this story, they want to know more. Just because there are no "scholarly works" based on the article, or is written on Wordpress (what does that have to do with anything? Half the webcomics listed are Keenspace hosted or were at time of article creation), does not mean that something is not "culturally relevant." PS: Look up transgenderism before you say something embarrassing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.240.60 (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)68.81.240.60 (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- There you have it, folks. The author herself (himself, if another contributor to this discussion is to be believed?) doesn't even want this article here. She's too good for us. But of course the fanboys and -girls aren't going to care about the author's wishes, in true fanboy/girl tradition. They won't respect the author's wishes, or the Wikipedia guidelines, or the relevant facts of the matter. All they care about is getting an article about their favorite novelty story enshrined among the actual worthwhile knowledge contained on Wikipedia, so they can point to it and claim it's worthwhile too. It's very interesting to look at the blog entry directing them to this page, and see the responses to it. The prevailing theme is the standard party line of anti-Wikipedia hypocricy: "Yeah, Wikipedia sucks because its guidelines are too strict, but I'll keep using it for research anyway because it's just so darn useful!" Well, people, that's what Wikipedia is for: RESEARCH. It's an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Until there are people who don't know much about this story and want to research it and find out about it, there's no need for it to be here. And that's not going to happen until the story is well-known enough that people have heard about it a few times without having actually been to the website. In other words, as another editor has repeatedly stated, (and been repeatedly ignored for stating,) when it becomes culturally relevant, then it will have a place here. Those who claim otherwise simply don't understand what Wikipedia is, and what it is not.207.176.6.60 (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, the author of the webpage not only didn't encourage this wikipedia article but has actively discouraged people from bothering try to put her into a non-notable, non-credible "source" like Wikipedia through her own blog and while she pointed out this undoutedly briefly-lived article in a post on Tales of MU titled "Blink and you'll miss it", she did so only as a matter of interest. My viral marketing campaign wouldn't be half as successful as it was if it depended on capturing the attention of an institution like Wikipedia which is engaged in slow ritual suicide, eternally seeking to shed its credibiilty with the people most inclnied to trust it in Quixotic pursuit of academic respectability. Seriously, look at the stance here: nothing is notable if it's in a source that's online where anybody can post? Really shooting yourself in the foot there, Wikitards. Ten years from now, people will still read my stories but nobody'll read Wikipedia except the community of people who treat it as a game/chatroom/fiefdom. Talk to me about notability then, and for the love of all that's holy and most things that aren't, get this article out of here. 72.213.46.52 (talk) 06:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC) (Alexandra Erin)
- Anyone who actually read the website would know that the above thinly-veiled accusation is false, as the author had nothing to do with the creation of the wiki entry. Cromage (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Tales of Mu is an example of a new form of literature which is neither a series of essays or a novel, lending it artistic merit worthy of inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.160.121 (talk • contribs) 2008-01-04 05:10:07
- As such it would more properly be included in an entry about the author, Alexandra Erin, as works by more traditional authors are listed/summarized in entries about those more traditional authors. Why shouldn't a web-published author be treated the same as traditionally-published authors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.135.11.50 (talk • contribs) 2008-01-04 05:22:51
- My question is in what way this article is different from (for example) the "I am legend," entry? Are you suggesting that web content is less valuable than books and movies? Odd stance for a web page to take. However, this entry is incomplete and should be a stub for a larger article linking tales of Mu, star harbor nights, tribe, and void dogs. It should probably have a link to the Baen free library, and some of the discussions about the differences between the Baen approach and the AE approach. Aaror 12:14, 4 January 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.245.157 (talk • contribs) 2008-01-04 05:15:14
- Aaror: This article differs from the "I Am Legend" entry in that it does not refer to any reliable sources aside from itself and its own websites. Furthermore, as stated before, the article in question consists mainly of plot summaries and non-verifiable information, whereas the "I Am Legend" entry (and those like it) contain not only a plot synopsis, but also information on production and critical references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mriako (talk • contribs) 2008-01-04 05:23:17
- Wikipedia isn't about "valuable" content, which is an extremely subjective term. It's about "notable" (culturally significant) content. I Am Legend was a major motion picture. This is some story that nobody's ever heard of, being written on WordPress. There are plenty of valuable websites and web-based content articles listed on Wikipedia. It's not about the medium, it's about the notability. 71.113.15.148 (talk) 05:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'd like to correct that, actually. It's not something that nobody has ever heard of, as several people associated with Baen Books have taken an active interest in Alexandra Erin and her work model. Tales of MU is not notable because of its story, but because of the way in which it is published and the discussions between Alexandra Erin and various other authors due to this fact. I pose, in fact, that its notability stems from it being a poster child of a new method of publishing and as such deserves a page just as much as Bob and George, another example of a pioneer in a previously untamed field. My point is this. Webcomics in general are not notable. Web serials in general are not notable. Flagships of each ARE notable so long as it is remembered that their notability stems from their flagship status and not from any other source. --72.230.79.43 (talk) 06:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- This only qualifies as a "flagship" if it becomes notable (culturally relevant.) You think this is the first person who's ever tried to publish a serial novel online? We just haven't heard of them because nobody's succeeded. When Alexandra Erin's book transitions from some story someone's posting on some blog that (maybe) a few hundred people read, to a successful self-published story that the general public has heard of (Eragon would be a good example,) then it will be noteworthy.71.113.15.148 (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have a question. Do you honestly believe that "the general public" knows about webcomics, or has even heard of Bob and George? Just because the "general public" doesn't know something doesn't mean it's not culturally relevant. Or, for that matter, doesn't mean it's not successful. 68.81.240.60 (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- This only qualifies as a "flagship" if it becomes notable (culturally relevant.) You think this is the first person who's ever tried to publish a serial novel online? We just haven't heard of them because nobody's succeeded. When Alexandra Erin's book transitions from some story someone's posting on some blog that (maybe) a few hundred people read, to a successful self-published story that the general public has heard of (Eragon would be a good example,) then it will be noteworthy.71.113.15.148 (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'd like to correct that, actually. It's not something that nobody has ever heard of, as several people associated with Baen Books have taken an active interest in Alexandra Erin and her work model. Tales of MU is not notable because of its story, but because of the way in which it is published and the discussions between Alexandra Erin and various other authors due to this fact. I pose, in fact, that its notability stems from it being a poster child of a new method of publishing and as such deserves a page just as much as Bob and George, another example of a pioneer in a previously untamed field. My point is this. Webcomics in general are not notable. Web serials in general are not notable. Flagships of each ARE notable so long as it is remembered that their notability stems from their flagship status and not from any other source. --72.230.79.43 (talk) 06:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- This isn't Tales of MU Wiki, it's a Wikipedia article. I'd have thought that would be obvious, but I guess not. Tales of MU is a web fiction series with 129 chapters which have been published in 3 printed books so far. 24.16.133.146 (talk) 05:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- If this article is not considered reasonable as a stand-alone, may I suggest incorporating it into the current Wikipedia Article for "serial novel"
As one of the first examples of this ancient format in a new medium, and the print versions also available, this seems to EASILY reach the notability requirements.
As for issues concerning 'lack of references' as far as I can tell this article is less than a day old. Give it a little time to ripen. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.42.171 (talk) 05:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- According to the deletion policy page, "pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion," and considering that this was nominated less than six hours after the page was created, I feel that this page was not given an appropriate chance to become a valid article. Certainly if the discussions between AE and the various people of Baen were to be linked, and the controversial nature of the publishing form were to be expanded upon, this could become quite valid, and well-supported. Also, the possibility of moving this to a page about Alexandra Erin was mentioned. I would be in favor of this, as it matches what I see happening with series by other authors. If such a new page were to be created, I feel that the information of primary importance would be AE's discussions on the viability of the web-publishing model which she follows. --72.230.79.43 (talk) 05:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Quitting one's job to work full-time on web-based publishing is hardly something new or novel. Howard Tayler did that years ago, and he wasn't the first to do so either. 71.113.15.148 (talk) 05:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Howard Tayler is a webcomic artist. Many webcomic artists have followed suit, but economically successful serialized novels are a relatively new phenomenon. Cromage (talk) 06:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I second that it is Alexandra Erin (who has multiple web serials) and not ToMU specifically, who meets notability standards at this time, and that she ought to have an article which includes ToMU, just like a standard author page. The controversy over her business model within the realm of web-based serial fiction (Baen, et al) is itself notable. ToMU is not, as someone suggested above, "some story that no one has ever heard of" - it's a popular and controversial new series by a relatively well-established serial novelist, but most of the notability factor here is AE's. --Parcequilfaut (talk) 06:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Is it permissible to create an article for a person whose only identity is a pseudonym? I am 99% sure "Alexandra Erin" is not the author's real name. It is also entirely possible that we don't even know his/her actual sex. --24.184.171.125 (talk) 06:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Where do you get this information? Though I am by no means an expert on the subject, I've never heard anything that would support the fact that Alexandra Erin is male, nor that she is not, in fact, Alexandra Erin. As far as entries for pseudonyms, though I recognize your point on the SOLE identity being a pseudonym, I believe that everyone would consider Mark Twain to be notable, even if his real name were not known. Rowenlemming (talk) 06:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Alexandra Erin is indeed not the author's legal name. Check out her Paypal account; it says Alexander. She is biologically male, but mentally female. I realise this is slightly mind-blowing for some people. I know I was taken aback when I learnt it. However, as Alexandra Erin is the name under which she is most notable, and she wishes to be known under that name, it would be entirely reasonable to use that name as an article title about her. Crispy (talk) 07:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- George Eliot's pen name was both non-gender-normative and not her given name; she's got her own wikipedia article under her pseudonym because it's the one under which she's notable. (Of course, GE is notable for other reasons and I'm not drawing a direct parallel; I was just pointing that out.)--Parcequilfaut (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Alexandra Erin is indeed not the author's legal name. Check out her Paypal account; it says Alexander. She is biologically male, but mentally female. I realise this is slightly mind-blowing for some people. I know I was taken aback when I learnt it. However, as Alexandra Erin is the name under which she is most notable, and she wishes to be known under that name, it would be entirely reasonable to use that name as an article title about her. Crispy (talk) 07:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Where do you get this information? Though I am by no means an expert on the subject, I've never heard anything that would support the fact that Alexandra Erin is male, nor that she is not, in fact, Alexandra Erin. As far as entries for pseudonyms, though I recognize your point on the SOLE identity being a pseudonym, I believe that everyone would consider Mark Twain to be notable, even if his real name were not known. Rowenlemming (talk) 06:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that, though I personally enjoy Tales of MU, it is not notable in the sense that it is encyclopedic. Alexandra Erin, however, is, and the sooner one of you wikipedians turn that into a blue link the better, for reasons not only of her burgeoning success but also of her pioneer status in the serial web novel business model. Rowenlemming (talk) 06:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've made a start on adding some references to the article. In the mere seven(!) hours since it was created, it's come a very long way. I've seen much worse articles on Wikipedia that have not been nominated for deletion so quickly. So, I recommend that the article be retained to begin with. The decision can be reviewed in one month if the powers that be so demand. Crispy (talk) 07:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Postpone: I agree with Crispiness, above. Give it some time...something good may come out of it. "Wikipedia is not paper," as they say, and there's no harm in letting this article take up a few bytes while it gets fleshed out for better or worse.Munion (talk) 08:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed with the editors above. This article definitely needs some time to grow and be discussed before deletion is even considered. --KharBevNor (talk) 10:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Is "notable" an objective or subjective measurement? When you consider how small a percentage of the people who visit a website will donate money to the cause (wikipedia a case in point), a large number of people must be reading this "unknown" work every day for it to be generating so much income that the author can quit her day job. One would think sheer force of numbers would render it notable. If, however, notability must be achieved in the minds of some unnamed Notability Board one can hardly support Wikipedia's claims to be universal64.252.103.144 (talk) 11:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)PCB
- Popularity is not our decision criterion. We don't include or exclude things based upon their fame. As Wikipedia:Notability explains, what are required are multiple published works from independent and reliable sources that document this subject in depth. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. It is an encyclopaedia. It is not in the business of documenting the undocumented. Uncle G (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- This article fails because its subject is not notable -- no independant and reliable source of review, only self-publication. The author is, I would suggest, also non-notable -- again there are no independant source reviews etc, there appears to be some doubt about the person's true name.identity, and it may well be that this person has expressed the view that s/he ought not to be on Wiki (see above), and has effectively declared h/erself non-Wiki-notable. If this article is kept, then I imagine all all other self-promoting web-authors will demand entries, as well as all sorts of people with a good reason to hide their identity, wh will want to use Wki as a means of shoring up a pseudonym (of which we have enough) -- 62.25.109.196 (talk) 11:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- In terms of external references-
- For Tales of Mu:
- For Pages Unbound:
- For the Author's pen name - Alexandra Erin:
- I would suggest that some of these are clearly indpendent and reliable reviews and while other self promoting authors may wish to have articles, clearly they only deserve them if they are successfully promoted. This criteria is the same for ALL creators, i.e. if you are successful and become an influence on the world around you, your work should be noted for future reference. Needless to mention, several of the references I found and discarded were people talking about Ms. Erin's work and how they were inspired to start writing themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.172.8.11 (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well done. But several of those don't cut the mustard. Wikipedia is not a source at all. Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source. Neither is a page on a self-submission wiki. A page that is just a list of links to web sites is not a source, since it doesn't actually contain any discussion of the subject. Uncle G (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Postpone: I don't understand why the rush to delete this article, either, unless the conclusion of Wikipedia is that serials are not notable per se, which I'm sure is not the case. Give it a minute, or give Alexandra Erin her own article, I say. --Parcequilfaut (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- The immediately preceding rationale, like so many others here, is not grounded in our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and carries no weight at all. If you want to make an argument that has any weight at all, you must do what 192.172.8.11 has tried to do above: cite sources. You have until the end of the AFD discussion period. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment—I wasn't able to find anything that would satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (books). So, reluctantly, I can't support a keep for this page.—RJH (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ooh, awesome, someone actually put it on wikipedia, talk about advertisement! Now before it gets deleted a dozen people will learn about it via deletion debate. However, unless there's been a verfiable third-party source writing about it, it's non-notable for web content. Delete, and go read it, people that haven't ;-P. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuronue (talk • contribs) 18:36, 4 January 2008 (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.
