Talk:Fans4Writers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The group is more than just a club -- they are walking the picket lines and raising money to support the WGA (East and West).

I apologize if I've somehow overstepped myself in creating the topic. I'm not one of the organizers or in any way "officially" associated with f4w, but I find it pretty amazing that it exists at all, and people are taking their time and money to get involved in the strike.

-- Clg0107 (talk) 18:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC) clg0107

You need to present how the group is notable. I'll remove the speedy deletion template for now, but please continue to work on it to avoid further deletion discussion. -- Rjd0060 (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it could just have a mention in the 2007 Writers Guild of America Strike, that way people can know about it and also it could be more viewed. Because the article itself could be placed in writers strike article. Dflav1138 (talk) 18:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This article was nominated for deletion on 16 November 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

[edit] Future of article - good, bad and ugly

I think one of the users (Transcentalstate, if I'm not mistaken) from the previous deletion debate (the result of which was Keep, see above) hit the mark with this comment: "This article documents an important, and previously really unprecedented, response amongst the general public in studio affairs; better footnotes should be obtained, better sources do exist, but the notability should not be in dispute."

There are three general paths this article could take:

UGLY: It could turn into nothing more than a short, fannish pat on the back for the group it is about. In fact, the first half comes dangerously close to seeming like just that, because of the way the quote is formated; there's a special format for quotes that puts them in a separate and obviously-denoted "quote box" type thing, complete with nice little quotation mark images. I'm extremely tempted to actually track down the code format for that, and reformat the quote, just to make it feel more NPOV, even if the literal content wouldn't change much. Then again, I also think it would just plain look more professional, so I'll probably do it if I remember to get around to it.

BAD: This article could be completely abandoned in the future. In which case, it might as well have been merged into the WGA 2007 strike article. It's an interesting and surprisingly notable topic from what I can see, so it would be a shame to see that happen. We need to make sure we stay on top of this one a little.

GOOD: This article is obviously one that could be expanded. Notability is reasonably well-established, but should be expanded upon and made even more clear - the organization appears to be quite unique and surprisingly large, and appears to have had a (slight) impact on the strike, at least as far as it has been one of the most visible signs that the majority of the public is on the side of the writers. I would also like to know if it has actually been registered as an official non-profit organization with the IRS yet or not, something that should be made clearer in the article. Additionally, a few people should attempt to stay on top of the article enough to see it through; that is, if the organization eventually disbands after the writers' strike, or take up a different cause, or if they publish a book with a major publisher or get mentioned in someone's memoirs or some such, it should end up mentioned in this article. I can definitely see this having potential to become a reasonably sizable, non-fannish, well-sourced, accurate and well-written article, seeing as it is already about halfway there to begin with (for instance, Mary Sue has been around for longer and is longer, and about a subject probably even more well-known, and has considerably fewer good sources last I checked than this one). The trick is seeing it through the rest of the way.

I sincerely hope this article takes the third path! It makes for a better encyclopedia, after all, to have good and thorough articles instead of crappy or abandoned ones. :P Runa27 00:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)