Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/False document

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 keep. Renaming can be done boldly through the usual channels. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

False document

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research, and no relevant hits for "false document" on Google Books. I suggest a redirect to exposition. Spannerjam (talk) 06:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~. This article suffers from a severe lack of focus. Despite the assertion in the lead that "a false document should not be confused with a mockumentary", it then goes on to list scores of mockumentaries as examples. There's a few flat-out forgeries mixed in, and there's a lot of crossover with fictional book, epistolary novel and found footage (genre). As far as I can tell from the lead, I think this article's supposed to be about novels which cite, and quote from, non-existent documents, in order to create a sense of authenticity. While I did find a few sources that use the term "false document" to refer to some sort of literary device, none of them appear to define it in the same way as the article. For example, in this New York Times article, Eileen Pollack (who apparently taught a seminar on the subject) says that the intent of a false document isn't to fool anyone, but to "make them think about the nature of reality"; she gives Spinal Tap and the Blair Witch Project as examples. The book Twisted Society (p. 288, footnote 347) describes Robinson Crusoe as a false document because it is "an account of supposedly factual events that never occured". And then there's Fiction as False Document, which is about the work of E. L. Doctorow, who incorporates real historical figures into his novels to blur the line between fact and fiction. All of these sources seem to be using the term to loosely mean "fiction presented as fact", which is a bit too broad a subject for a Wikipedia article, encompassing pretty much any book, film, etc that claims to be based on a true story.

Nevertheless, I'm reluctant to !vote delete because I'm certain that false documents as defined by this article are a real phenomenon – I've come across them often enough – and I'm surprised that I can't find any sources discussing the concept. One book mentioned in the article, The Invention of False Medieval Authorities as a Literary Device in Popular Fiction, is more the kind of thing I was hoping to find, but it's only available in snippet view. Worth noting, however, that the term "false document" doesn't appear anywhere in the book, so there's probably a different name for this kind of thing. I'll keep looking. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the concept is real, does not mean the term is (a supposed literary technique). But perhaps I misunderstood you? Spannerjam (talk) 10:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the concept is real but the term isn't, the article should be renamed rather than deleted. Hence my !vote below. DoctorKubla (talk) 12:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename. I'm satisfied now that the concept of citing non-existent documents to lend credibility to a work of fiction is a real and notable literary technique, used by Steven King, Enchi Fumiko, Edmund Morris, Alan Moore, Chaucer (who cites Corynne and Lollius), and Isaac Asimov, among others. But the term "false document" is generally used to mean something different, so the article should be renamed to something more appropriate (I'd suggest Fictional document). And it goes without saying that the listcruft should be substantially cut back. DoctorKubla (talk) 12:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP has difficulty holding on to articles about concepts, even well-known ones, when the concept doesn't have a specific name. I wonder if that is the situation here. I find myself agreeing with what the good Doctor says and I'll have a further think. If it is relevant the article started out life in 2001 (!) and has had many editors. There is also Category:False documents. Thincat (talk) 14:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely a relevant and significant concept -- and you can find more sources that pre-date the article if you look for " fictional document". I say keep. DS (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename, refocus. See also Necronomicon. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (I commented above). By chance I have stumbled on a particularly interesting example, the claimed source of Historia Regum Britanniae. The concept is well documented and exemplified and not to be dismissed as OR or assessed by Ghits. The article as a whole needs a great deal of sorting out and pruning. Thincat (talk) 22:46, 23 December 2012 (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.