View source for User:Z1720/Signpost draft

<noinclude>{{Signpost draft
 |title              = <!-- Copy the title from below here-->
 |blurb              = <!-- REPLACE THIS with a short description / blurb -->
 |Ready-for-copyedit = No
 |Copyedit-done      = No
 |Final-approval = inactive <!--Should only be used by EiC -->
}}
{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/RSS description
 |1=<!-- LEAVE BLANK to use "<title>: <blurb>" (using title and blurb from above), or replace with a custom description for the RSS feed -->
}}{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Signpost-header|||}}</noinclude>

{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Signpost-article-header-v2
 |{{{1|YOUR ARTICLE'S DESCRIPTIVE TITLE HERE<!-- REPLACE THIS-->}}}
 |By [[User:Z1720|Z1720]]
}}

{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Signpost-block-start-v2|fullwidth=no<!--CHANGE TO YES FOR A 'FULLWIDTH' ARTICLE-->}}

<s>I created this in response to an essay written by NewYorkBrad [[User:Newyorkbrad/Newyorkbradblog#Notes on notability]]. This essay submitted below is for consideration for the next Signpost.</s> 

I have decided to withdraw this submission. [[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 15:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

=== Notability and significant coverage ===

:I came into AfD discussions less than a month ago. Before I voted on any AfDs I read all of the policies I could find and analysed arguments in archived AfDs. Often [[WP:GNG]] was cited as a reason to keep or delete an article. The first GNG criteria is, "Significant coverage: addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." What should we do if an article seems like it should have significant coverage, but editors cannot find it? 
:One of my favourite games is ''[[The Legend of Dragoon]]''. When I joined Wikipedia in the 2000s, there were many articles on the lore and fiction of the game, like the game's main character [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Dart_Feld&type=revision&diff=195178529&oldid=174658367&diffmode=source] or a major event in the game's mythology [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Dragon_Campaign&type=revision&diff=143456242&oldid=132233487&diffmode=source]. Back then, when I wanted to learn cool information about these characters, I would go to Wikipedia which would have the lore and detailed plot summaries that reminded me of what I loved about the game. Recently, I have a lot of free time because of COVID, so I played the game again. This time, when I wanted information about the characters or the story, I started at Wikipedia. However, the articles I read 10 years ago about the lore and insignificant details had long ago been deleted, including the articles above. When I wanted a refresher of the lore of the game, I closed my Wikipedia tab and went to a fan-made Wikia site. 
:The [[MOS:PLOT]] states, "Because works of fiction are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source" By itself, this sentence means Wikipedia can have an article without reference if the article is about a work of fiction with only the plot in the article space. However, Wikipedia is not [[WP:INDISCRIMINATE]], which says "Wikipedia articles should not be...Summary-only descriptions of works" so Wikipedia articles can't just be about the plot. This is where editors need to engage. Many articles with notability issues were created in the 2000s before these policies and guidelines were set up. Editors need to find sources to add and expand upon these articles. The two articles I cited above only contained fictional information from the game when they were deleted and redirected to the game's article; no development info, no reception, no analysis from secondary sources, no citations. Deleting these articles means fewer clicks for the site, but Wikipedia kept its dogma that information on its cite is [[WP:V|verified]]. It was correct to delete these articles because the likelihood of finding significant coverage on the main character of a cult-like video game is pretty low, and even lower for a video game's mythological event. Wikipedia didn't get my click, but it did keep my trust that whatever I read on the site about the game would be true. 
:I voted "delete" in the ''Just Peck'' AfD cited in NYB's essay. Before I vote in any AfD I look for sources on Google, JSTOR and ProQuest. Google found articles that mentioned the movie, but mostly in relation to the actor's career or as a question in an interview with an actor. I made a judgement call based on [[WP:GNG]] and [[WP:NFILM]] that these sources did not significantly mention the movie, and thus the movie did not have significant coverage to warrant its own article. My major concern about the sources I found was that they did not provide significant coverage of the plot, creation or development of the film. I thought instead that the information in the sources should be included in the actor's article. Yes, I believed significant coverage on the movie could be found eventually. But since I could not find it, and I assumed the nominator of the AfD could not find it because of [[WP:BEFORE]], I thought it was better to follow Wikipedia's policy and vote delete. However, maybe delete isn't the best outcome for articles that could become notable and encyclopedic in the future. Maybe NYB is right in his instincts that this article has encyclopedic value, and we need to acknowledge this. 
:Here's a proposal: A bot should draft articles that have 0 citations or references, with a redirect on the article page to the draft. Draft pages would also have a different colour background by default (like a pale blue or green) to distinguish it from Mainspace articles. This would make it clear to the reader that this article is unverified and does not meet our standards. NYB said in his essay, "[M]y encyclopedic instincts have some value too, and they tell me that deleting would be a mistake." Although editors can re-create an article that is deleted once they find appropriate references, NYB also notes, in speaking about recreating articles about Wisconsin judges, that, "There can be obstacles to such re-creations, including...The reasonable fear that even if the new article isn't G4'd, the fact that it's been deleted once suggests that it's at risk of being deleted again, so why risk doing the work for nothing; and [t]he greater "barrier to entry" when instead of adding text to an existing, perhaps well-formatted article, one starts with the blank screen." Deleting an article makes it daunting for some editors to re-create an article from scratch. Moving unreferenced articles to drafts, but still making them easy to find, gives readers and editors the chance to fix them and get them back to the mainspace. This process would not stop editors who, after a thorough search for references, determine that an article will probably never be encyclopedic and nominate it for deletion. Editors can then find consensus on if the article can ever become notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. 
:Looking at the AfD, commentators have found sources for ''Just Peck'' that I was unable to find. I will take a look at them, and consider changing my vote. If this bot is ever created, I think ''Just Peck'' would be ignored from this drafting bot. But for now, I'm going to spend some time playing ''The Legend of Dragoon.'' [[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 23:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
{{Signpost draft helper}}

<!--END OF ARTICLE -->
{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Signpost-block-end-v2}}
{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Signpost-article-end-v2}}
<noinclude>{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Signpost-article-comments-end||2020-08-02|}}</noinclude>