Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rage (fictional virus)

Rage (fictional virus)

Rage (fictional virus) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable, in-universe only subject. Unlikely reliable sources can be found to indicate notability. Fails WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy 05:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The parent articles - 28 Days/Weeks Later Characters, 28 Days Later, 28 Weeks Later and 28 Days Later: The Aftermath - have done nothing but spawn huge piles of in-universe fancruft of which this is yet another. Wikipedia is not a fan site or a free web host. The writers are looking for Geocities, not Wikipedia. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 09:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No reason for this to have its own page. Just the page for the movie is enough. --Alessandro ♫ ^{T • C} 12:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Many other articles on fictional "in-universe" subjects for movie/television. This is no less legitimate a subject than all the others. -- Voldemore 19:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

  Comment Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. For this particular article, reliable sources are needed to demonstrate it's notability or it is subject to deletion. Doctorfluffy 20:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

  To be fair, a lot of our editors seem unaware what "in-universe" means and are perhaps unaware of the guideline in the Manual of Style covering writing about fiction without pretending it's real. This leads editors into thinking that we persecute articles about fiction, when in fact all we require is that they are encyclopaedic and meet the specific notability guideline for fiction-related subjects by including independent reliable secondary sources. When Voldemore becomes more familiar with the guidelines, I'm sure s/he'll change opinion immediately. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 21:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

  I suppose I should have explicitly stated it, but WP:FICT is the basis for my nom. I'll add that above. Also, I found your response to be eloquently succinct. Doctorfluffy 22:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The virus is just a MacGuffin for a rather superior zombie movie and its sequel, a satire on the War on Terror. --Tony Sidaway 04:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The sequel is rather inferior, precisely because of that ham-handed attempt at satire....--victor falk 10:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect to utter b******* the article for the film. agree with Tony Sidaway D.C.Rigate 07:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect Medical details are interesting encyclopedic trivia, and should be integrated in the film's article--victor falk 10:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into the movie - surely this would be sufficient? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It's not notable for people who aren't into the movie, but neither are the United States Democratic presidential candidates, 2008 to someone who doesn't follow American politics. I know there's a difference, but it's a difference of degree. I found the article because I was intrigued about the depictions of fictional diseases in media, not because I'm a huge fan of a zombie movie. This is a decent article and of distinctly different interest than it's parent film. Let it live. --Just Some Guy 12:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

  Comment Notability has absolutely nothing to do with how fans or non-fans or anybody else feels about the topic. It has to do with reliable, independent sources devoting significant coverage to the topic. The Rage virus does not meet that criteria, whereas, per your example, there are 100s of newspaper articles, webpages, news reports, interviews, essays, etc from reliable, independent sources devoted to the presidential candidates every day. Doctorfluffy 18:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: the entire article is unsourced and appears, to someone who hasn't seen the film, to be almost entirely speculation. This entire article could be shrunk to two lines and dumped into the original 28 Days Later - and, in fact, effectively already is. — Xenoveritas 14:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for only being of in-universe importance. - Chardish 15:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I was initially inclined to a Merge, since it does contain semi-useful information. However, since it deals with information that is in more than one film, and that develops across the films, I feel after contemplation that it's more desirable to have a separate entry to reduce cross-movie spoilers, MacGuffin though it may be. It definitely needs more explicit referencing as to which info comes from which movie (or book); however, that is a reason to Improve the article, not delete it. That there is massive amounts of fancruft out there is not a justification for deletion; one must show THIS is fancruft. I might be willing to consider amending my vote if someone who's seen the movie(s) and read the graphic novel can show there's extensive fancruft involved here. Abb3w 15:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

  Comment It is doubtful the article can be improved to meet the requirements of WP:FICT as reliable secondary sources do not appear to exist. Also, your assertion that it must be demonstrated that this is fancruft is incorrect; the burden of evidence lies with establishing notability. It is not required to prove non-notability. Doctorfluffy 17:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

  Comment You misunderstand my point. If the contents are (as Redvers suggests) largely fancruft, that would be grounds for deletion. However, unless someone with the relevant minimal expertise (IE, saw the movies and read the book(s)) asserts that the contents are fancruft, then fancruft is irrelevant until substantiated by that first knowledgeable affirmation. Also, while it's a McGuffin, it's a central McGuffin to the fictional universe. The separate page seems justified for style reasons, as WP:FICT allows, until and unless a "28 days/weeks/whatever" universe page evolves. Abb3w 21:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

  I'm not exactly clear on your argument regarding the cruftery, but I think it's obvious that at least a few people here think the article is fancruft. Regardless, I'm still not seeing reliable sources independent of the subject indicating its notability from anybody in this discussion, and WP:FICT only allows for subpages for content that is itself notable to at least a moderate degree. Just look at the references provided for those clauses; element of the universes of Superman, Hamlet, Final Fantasy, and Star Wars. Those are some of the most important subjects in their respective genres, and I don't think anything nearing that level of notability can be established for an element of the 28 Days Later universe. Doctorfluffy 21:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. While the article itself is fairly poor, the Rage virus does cross two major movies and a graphic novel spin-off (with a third movie apparently on the way). We also risk opening a can of worms here with District 1 currently having it's own page. I suggest that we should have a think about how to rewrite this article instead of putting it through AfD. 193.128.2.2 15:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

  Comment The subject matter could exist in 10 times as many movies, but that still does not establish notability per WP:FICT. The topic needs to be covered by reliable secondary sources to establish notability, and such sources do not appear to exist for the Rage virus. I usually refrain from mentioning other stuff, but it is likely that the District 1 article also does not meet the notability criteria per WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy 17:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. There should be no need to read four different articles to scrape together all the bits of information about this when we can put all the salient facts in one place and insert {{main}} templates in the other articles as needed. Bryan Derksen 16:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

  Comment If the material in this fictional topic is not notable per WP:FICT then it should not be on Wikipedia period. As I have stated in the above two comments, this topic does not meet the criteria for coverage from reliable secondary sources. If a limited portion of the material can be used to improve the main articles on the movies (which is questionable in my opinion as this is almost entirely WP:NOT#PLOT) then it should be there. The Rage virus on its own simply doesn't have the necessary notability. Doctorfluffy 17:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This article has its place, regardless of another submitter's flawed sense notability. There are other articles on fictionsl viruses. I think the fact that other people have created articles around this theme and different viruses makes it notable in itself. Note that WP:OTHERSTUFF is not really applicable against my argument, as there are a plurality of fictional virus articles and not just another single one - all created by different people. Also WP:FICT is a guideline, not official policy. Also note that the submitter's primary goal is deletion, and not Editing. Furthermore, submitter's arguments go against WP:NOTPAPER, which is official policy. Taken all together, it is pretty clear that this article should be a Keep. -Nodekeeper 20:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

  Comment You're correct, WP:FICT is not policy per se, but it is the logical combination of two official policies, WP:N and WP:NOT#PLOT. WP:N itself states that fot all topics significant coverage must come from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Regardless of how many sources have covered the movie, it is very unlikely there is a credible source that has devoted substantial coverage to the virus itself. Without such sources, there is nothing to indicate this doesn't break WP:NOT#PLOT. This subject of this article - which to be clear is only the virus in the movies, not the movies themselves - has no real-world context, analysis from external sources, cultural impact, or historical significance. Doctorfluffy 20:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

but it is the logical combination of two official policies

To clarify, it's your logical conclusion of the two policies, not Wikipedia's. In your singleminded zeal to achieve your goal of deletion, your provide a policy framework that simply does not exist. In addition, you give no other substantial arguments for deletion. I could understand if the article had large faults in other ways, but as it is the policy WP:NOTPAPER outweighs your jury rigged nonpolicy attempt for deletion. -Nodekeeper 23:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever read WP:FICT? Taken directly from its first section, "Defining notability for fiction":

From Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#PLOT:

Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.

From Wikipedia:Notability:

A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

Based on this reasoning and the above excerpts, fictional concepts are deemed notable if they have received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources.

The above clearly shows the premise of WP:FICT is a direct logical derivative of the combination of WP:N and WP:NOT#PLOT. That fact is indisputable. To be honest, I don't understand how you could be making the rest of the arguments you present. The logical framework I present was not written by me, it's been included on official policy/guidelines pages for as long as I can remember, and there is a mountain of precedent regarding it in numerous AfDs. Just pick a few at random from the fictional cat and I am sure you will see others talking about WP:FICT and the need for secondary sources.

You also keep refrencing WP:NOTPAPER; have you actually read that either? Taken directly from it; "there is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page". Even assuming all the information in the Rage article is WP:V, which it probably isn't due to the lack of independent sources, it still breaks WP:NOT#PLOT and likely breaks WP:NOT#OR.

I am starting to have trouble taking you serious at this point and will likely not respond to any more comments you make unless you actually show an understanding of policy. Doctorfluffy 23:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• I would like to consider this question: have sources other than those writing the articles studied the subject in depth? Bearing in mind that this is a fictional disease and not a real one, I'd look for the following:
  • comments by medically qualified people on medical aspects of this fictional construction;
  • comments by critics on the use of the disease motif in the movie; in particular, comparisons to other disease-themed works of fiction, such as Camus' masterpiece, La Peste, Defoe's A Journal of the Plague Year, and so on;
• The question in my mind is: is this article here simply because a fan of these excellent films fancied writing in detail, from the film itself and the statements of those involved in its production and distribution, about aspects the fictional disease, or is there a deeper, underlying reason why we should consider this subject to require an encyclopedia article of its own? And for that I'd be looking for comments on its medical or literary significance. It might help us to make the decision if we could see sourced statements of the kind I've alluded to. --Tony Sidaway 23:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

  What you're asking about is precisely why the policies (mainly WP:N and WP:FICT) that I keep referencing exist in the first place. In layman's terms, the mere fact that something exists doesn't warrant its inclusion in Wikipedia, so we need to define notability as being the subject of significant coverage by reliable, independent sources. This is one of the core tenets of Wikipedia and the real reason we're here - if I thought such sources existed to indicate notability then I wouldn't have nominated it for deletion. Doctorfluffy 23:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep or Redirect to 28 Days Later I added some references. I see no Wikipedia policy on "in-universe only" subjects. Mdwh 00:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

  Comment In wikipedia context, "in-universe" typically refers to this guideline and the problems it lays out. Your sources have slightly more than a passing mention of the virus, but they're mainly plot summaries that acknowledge the virus's existence as an element of that plot. I'm not sure if I'd classify them as significant or substantial coverage. Doctorfluffy 00:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)