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 no consensus. the wub "?!" 22:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TV Tropes Wiki[edit]

TV Tropes Wiki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Fails to pass the threshold of notability - references are primarily to the website itself. External sources include:

  1. The curiculum for a college course (independent, but not a discussion in a reliable source in my mind, and somewhat trivial)
  2. A referral in a notable webcomic. This is not a discussion of TTW, it's a referral to a single page. The author apparently thinks it's a good source, but doesn't say anything about TTW, s/he just links to it.
  3. A reference in the DVD commentary of Lost. Actually a shout-out, not even a referral and certainly not a discussion.

Per WP:WEB, there is a lack of non-trivial discussion in reliable sources to indicate the site has received extensive attention. No awards, no redistribution in newspapers. Page has received trivial attention, not discussion, in some borderline sources. WLU (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Regards point 1) I'm not commenting on the AfD as a whole until I can gather my thoughts. But I think it's hardly fair to call use of a website in a college class that is explicitly about the same subject trivial. In my mind, determining notability is as simple as determining the notability of the school, and the prominence of that class in the school. -- trlkly
(Regards point 2) Maybe I'm thinking about the wrong one, but I believe he gives a glowing review of the site. He also mentions one of the article, which is technically discussing the subject of the wiki. -- trlkly
  • Striking my delete and abstaining -- between the bibliographic citations and coverage in newpaper "blogs" (which as DocumentN notes seem to count as reliable sources) this is no longer clearly outside the wikidefinition of notable. I'm not sure that it's inside it, either, though. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me if I'm doing this wrong, but this is my first AfD. Anyways, I also want to point out that, if there are five external references, and three are ELs, then the article is not "primarily sourced" by the wiki. At least, in my opinion. -- trlkly 06:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That does make some sense. TVTropes may not be notable enough, but the concept they espouse probably is. Of course, we have to find sources. Question: Could TVTropes be listed as an EL? Or would that be against policy? -- trlkly 10:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ELNO singles out wikis (#12) as something that is normally not linked. Like most wikis, this one would be of dubious reliability, and probably considered mostly WP:OR were it here. WLU (talk) 10:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A link to the site would be appropriate in an External Links section. I expect that we will have little difficulty finding more relaible sources now that Media Studies is well-established in academia. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hate using this type of argument, but I'd say it's a bit hypocritical to single out wikis like that. I mean, we have templates specifically for putting wikis on pages. Quite a few pages link to sister wikis or other MediaWikis. So if Wikimedia designed it, (or it's sister Wikia gets payed enough for it), then it's okay. I don't think it's fair to assume that, just because it's a wiki, it is most likely dubious. Examine sites on an individual basis, not using the same wiki-stereotype that alarms WP editors. Evaluate the information therein, not the style in which it is presented. That's my $0.02. -- trlkly 13:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikis would not ordinarily be linked to in External Links, but this one has been cited in the bibliography in more than one textbook. If it's good enough for those, it should be good enough for us. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is not a policy. It is a comparatively recent innovation and it is open to us to change or deprecate it if it seems that it is not helping us. I would support such a change. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The WeirdestInboundLinkOfTheDay may possibly have some things that could be mentioned. There's John C. Wright, at least.
WP:V#SELF currently says "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Does Wright being a published trope-using author make him an expert in the field of tropes? --DocumentN (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You'd probably have to verify the fact that he is a trope user from a source that claims it directly, in order to avoid WP:SYN. -- trlkly 22:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it even logically possible to write a tropeless novel? Trying to dodge and subvert tropes is after all a trope in itself; authors have been doing it for a long time, and you still need to use knowledge of tropes to do it. --DocumentN (talk) 14:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not in my opinion. But Wikipedia likes sources, maybe even a little too much. I've seen statements that are logically straightforward removed because of lack of sources. There's got to be someone who has said what you've said, though, so it shouldn't be that big a problem I think that the author's "trope expert" status would useful, if not vital, to source, though. -- trlkly 16:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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.
More