Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valenzetti

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 No consensus. This article went through a big change during this AfD and now refers to an entirely different person (a fictional character in Lost), but even ignoring that, there is insufficient consensus to delete this article. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Valenzetti

This is either a hoax or improper manipulation of Wikipedia's reputation. There is information in this article that has not been revealed anywhere else (e.g., Enzo Valenzetti is said to have proven Fermat's last theorem but burnt his work after showing it to his colleagues) in either the shows or the related websites. The contents of this article are either invented -- & thus should be considered a hoax & removed -- or it is part of the Alternate reality game related to the television series, & thus should not be part of Wikipedia. Articles about ARGs are one thing: providing articles that are part of an ARG is another -- & something we must keep out of Wikipedia, because in blurring the distinction between fact & fiction this can only harm our encyclopedia's credibility. (And the information in the article has already been mirrored elsewhere, so deletion does not mean it is irreparably gone.)

Sorry to be so brief in my argument, but I really need to be in bed. I'll be happy to answer questions later, but in any case I believe this matter needs a thorough discussion not only about this case, but over future cases. -- llywrch 06:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The key issue is verifiability. There have been a few newspaper articles lately about Lost and a book highlighted in the series called Bad Twin (which I understand was written by one of the characters in the show - sorry I don't watch it) that mention this as one of the other (fictional?) author's works. Fluit 08:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• AfD is a mathematical calculation designed to predict nothing less than the exact number of days left before the deletion of this bad piece of unverifiable fiction. Kimchi.sg 08:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per above and it's in no way notable or encyclopedic. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 11:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverified and non-encycopedic. Kevin 11:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

*Delete as per all the above. Coffeeboy 14:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I have actually rethought the article. I think the original article was obviously original research, but it does deserve mention as a Gary Troup work along with any verifiable information. Perhaps Bad Twin, Gary Troup, and Valenzetti could be all wrapped up into one article. Coffeeboy 15:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Deletion is all very good -- & I was strrongly tempted to simply be bold & delete this article myself without nominating this -- but the issue still remains: what do we do when "puppetmasters" insert material from their ARGs into Wikipedia? Simply delete the article & move on? Ban the people? Bring the matter to wider attention? Or am I asking questions that are off-topic for AfD? -- llywrch 15:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Why not just edit it to say "Valenzetti is a fictional character in the world of LOST. According to the ARG, this is his fictional background:" ?? --S 11:39 11 May 2006
• COMMENT: This is fictional, part of "lost" history/ Culture. I do not think it should be deleted, only clearly stated that is is fictional and part of the lost TV show background. Currently, even ABC official site links here. So why not let 'losties' have their fun —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.201.147.43 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 11 May 2006

• WP:NOT a fansite to "let 'losties' have their fun." See also WP:FICT. Barno 18:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Please re-read WP:FICT which gives specific guidelines on keeping or merging similar content, rather than deletion. agapetos_angel 11:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete this is clearly a faux article. It may have been created to promote a fan site, http://valenzettifoundation.org which notes, "(This site is not affiliated with ABC, ABC, ABC or ABC)". Or it may have been added to support the "Lost Experience." In either case, use of Wikipedia for marketing purposes is wrong. A bit of research indicates that one of the editors for the article 71.140.128.230 is Javier Grillo-Marxuach (formerly) a writer/producer for Lost [1]. As much as I appreciate Javi's work, such an article is a misuse of Wikipedia. —Leflyman^Talk 19:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• If either Encyclopedia Britannica or Encarta allowed an something like this in their website to promote a television show, I would lose a great deal of respect for them; I doubt am alone in this view. The same applies to Wikipedia: people would distrust us if we let Hollywood -- or any other commercial entity -- use us as a conduit to raise a buzz over their products. And I can think of half a dozen fan websites that would be excited to accept something like this from the creators of Lost, become part of the show & promote the heck out of it. Take it to one of them, & create goodwill with your fanbase; your submission is not what Wikipedia is looking for. -- llywrch 19:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm sorry, I just don't see how this is anymore "promotion" than an article on Superman or Spider-Man. Seriously, if you say it's fiction, it's just like those articles. Besides, before someone pointed out it had to do with LOST, there was no mention of LOST OR ABC - so someone coming across it wouldn't suddenly want to watch LOST - it's promotion for Wikipedia if anything. Besides, now that it's up at LOSTpedia, what's keeping someone from (after this is deleted), sourcing LOSTpedia and putting up the exact same text - only with the words "fictional character" in it . . . because then, it would be by the guidelines stated here. --S 11:39 11 May 2006

Those articles begin along the lines of "X is a fictional character in the works of Y", & refer to specific episodes, creators & other verifiable sources for their statements. In the case of this article, even if it were re-written to Wikipedia standards, & Lostpedia was used as a source, we still come back to the problem that we don't know where various details in this article come from: if Javier Grillo-Marxuach created these details, & they are canonical to the series then he must be quoted directly -- for him to say "it's mostly accurate" is not good enough.

He should have put it on a fansite first, for a number of reasons. First, Wikipedia does not accept submissions in the fiction category; if this is not a clearly understood, then give me 5 minutes & I'll start making it a formal policy. Secondly, all information on Wikipedia needs to be verifable, which means it can be found outside of Wikipedia in a book, the mass media, or an appropriate website; we don't accept primary sources or original research, so tv writers submitting fiction about their characters is again inappropriate. Third, as I said above, there are countless fans who would be thrilled to be part of the making of Lost, & they would be far more eager than we to help publish this kind of information; & if this became successful enough, an article would be written in Wikipedia. Lastly, as Leflyman above points out, this is part of a promotion for a television show, not an objective submission of information; Wikipedia is WP:NOT advertising. If you can't understand the difference between the two, then your time on Wikipedia will only become less pleasant: I'm being civil & respectful; there are other Wikipedians who won't be as nice over submissions like this. -- llywrch 21:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for being civil and respectful. I was merely trying to find a middle ground, but I do understand your points. I still stand by most of mine, but where my stance falters is the "all information on Wikipedia needs to be verifable." In the end - that's all it takes to make my arguments moot. That said, I just think that once it's deleted it will show up again and even though it will have been done by the book - there won't be much of a dif. Even so, as they say, rules are rules. --S 16:23 11 May 2006

Actually, Wikipedia is rife with 'submissions in the fiction category', and many along the same vein. The aforementioned Spidey and Superman, Scarlett O'Hara, Female protagonists in Disney animated films (full of links to fictional character articles, including Queen of Hearts (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland), a secondary character), etc. NOR is the only obstacle that I can see, easily overcome with a rewrite, rather than a delete. 11:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for now, but keep an open mind for the future. Alternative reality game PuppetMasters are notorious for passing off fictional material as truth in external sites they have access to (fan blogs, Wikipedia, etc.), in addition to traditional media channels. That's part of the fun in ARGs. The sources of the material on the page are fictional and currently, because the puppetmasters haven't posted it authoritively anywhere else, unverifiable. That's not to say that, within the Lost mythos, they're not true. In reality, Enzo Valenzetti is a fictional character referred to by the blast door map in the Lost TV series and the book Bad Twin. The "previous book" by the fictional author of Bad Twin, Gary Troup, was "The Valenzetti Equation" and is referred to as "out of print" rather than the more truthful "non-existant". Enzo Valenzetti may turn out to be an interesting character, plot strand or clue in The Lost Experience, or even a future series of Lost itself. Thus, Enzo may well be worth an article in future - it depends on how notable he becomes. Right now, he's a tiny clue fragment and Lost Experience puppetmasters are abusing Wikipedia's reputation. 195.173.23.111 11:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable Arru 11:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Alternative reality within tv shows and movies is just another version of a comic book or novel that supports a movie. As long as the listing indicates that Valenzetti is a fictional character in the world of lost. It is also an opportunity to educate and extend the capabilities of Wikipedia as a source of information (i.e. using the opportunity to educate and create listings about alternative reality segments of shows - 'what they are' and 'their history'. If we decide what qualifies under deletion, we should consider that we are missing an opportunity to educate and learn (fiction is a learning experience - sometimes it is as strong a lesson as non-fiction).
• Keep given that it has undergone changes in the meantime ;-) — Timwi 13:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: WP:V, WP:NOT Amalas =^_^= 14:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The minute details of ARGs are not encyclopedic. FCYTravis 15:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep : Just move it to "Lost Experience" with the other clues. This clue shouldn't be treated any differently than Gary Troup, Bad Twin, the Hanso Foundation, or any of the ARG clues that are fictional, yet actually part of the Lost Experience game and the Lost TV show.--Dreadpiratetif 21:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep : If Wikipedia can have articles about porn, it can certainly support an(other) article about an ARG game. Just make sure it is correctly marked as such, so it is not confused with reality. agapetos_angel 07:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - seems to violate every rule I can think of, including WP:NOR. If this information hasn't been published elsewhere, by definition it has no place in Wikipedia. We can't even include info on the hoax itself, because *that* information has not been published elsewhere that I know of. If this wasn't from the makers of Lost, then it falls down under notability - what do we care about fan sites' fictional universes? If it was from the makers of Lost, but relates to unaired material, it falls down under WP:NOT a crystal ball. So many reasons to delete, do I have to choose one? Stevage 08:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand, lot's of info from the garytroup website, and from the "interviews" at amazon, borders, and barnes and noble. ArgentiumOutlaw 17:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - The game might be notable, the character won't be. - Hahnchen 14:00, 17 May 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.