Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikifiction

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 02:59, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Wikifiction[edit]

This is obviously not an encyclopedia entry-- not to say that it isn't a really cool idea, but it doesn't belong here Saswann 13:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, advertising. R adiant _* 13:52, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - I DNK if this is advertising, but it is all in terms of what will happen and I gather that this is not the place for crystal balls --Simon Cursitor 14:25, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I left a note on the talk page suggesting that the author join Wikipedia and userfy this proposal. Sounds like fun, but probably a recipe for disaster - considering the trouble we have with vandals of fact, how would you deal with a vandal of fiction? -- BDAbramson ^thimk 14:42, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
Delete - People (even those who take part in projects such as this) are very proprietorial about fiction, so this will be prone to reverts and attacks - but principally this is not in the right place --User:DavidFarmbrough 17:25, 11 May 2005 (BST)
Delete. Maybe the new article form should say, "If you have to invent a word for what you're writing about, it probably isn't encyclopedic." ---Isaac R 18:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the text is already at Wikipedia:Wikidea, which might be another VfD candidate. But this speculation certainly doesn't belong in the article namespace! I'll refer the creator to Wikicities; Most of what they propose is already in place there. Andrewa 18:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikiprojects. This is most evidently in the wrong place. While it is not an encyclopedic entry, as stated above, it sounds like a good idea. This is more deserving as a project instead of an encyclopedic article. --129.180.1.124 00:23, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Please sign your votes, user 129.180.1.124, otherwise they may not be counted. Redirects from the article namespace to others are very much the exception, the few we have are historical, and I could not support this one. Also, you need to say where the redirect should point to for a redirect vote to be meaningful. No change of vote. Andrewa 00:05, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, Andrewa. My mind wasn't in the right place. While the redirect...well, as I said, it should probably be a Wikiproject (in with the project pages) than in with the articles. If anyone has any arguments against that, feel free to say so. --129.180.1.124 00:23, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for correcting your vote above. There's a lot going on! I suspect you may be confusing Wikipedia sister projects with wikiprojects, the term wikiproject or WikiProject has a specific meaning in Wikipedia. The project namespace is not a suitable place for this, as it's about a project that goes beyond the scope of Wikipedia. Once such a project was established, it might qualify for a Wikipedia article. But in the planning stage it doesn't. See what Wikipedia is not. See also redirect. No change of vote. Andrewa 01:36, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.