Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 May 10
 |
| This page has been blanked as a courtesy. |
<--
-->
- 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 delete. Setting aside the comments from SPAs on both sides which aren't grounded in any kind of policy, it's clear that this doesn't quite meet notability requirements. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}. |
- Fallout: Equestria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested WP:PROD. I listed my original concern as "No assertion of notability through reliable, published sources. Does not meet general notability guidelines as all sources are Wikis, Youtube, or other various fansites. No coverage in reliable third party media sources." I can't find any significant coverage from reliable sources. Teancum (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
DeleteRedirect - coming as one of the main editors of the MLP:FIM article, I think I've only ever seen one reference in a foreign language reliable source to F:E (noting it's larger in word count than War & Peace) - far from enough to be notable. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)- I found that reliable source (a polish paper) that gives the claim to F:E as being 2000+ A4 pages. This I've used to include fan fiction mention in the main MLP:FIM article, and including a #Fallout: Equestria anchor. So the term is searchable and thus redirection to the main MLP:FIM article is recommended. --MASEM (t) 20:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Can you present this source please?EDIT: Nevermind, I assume it's this: http://www.emetro.pl/emetro/1,85652,11098458,Kochamy_pony__sa_nas_miliony.html - Seems to be a passing mention in some random polish website. Sergecross73 msg me 02:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)- Looks like the source was used to support a mention of Fallout: Equestria on the My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic article. Here is the source in question, and it appears to be a news report in a magazine/newspaper. Relevant excerpt, translated from Polish via Google: "The longest of them - 'Fallout: Equestria' - set in post-apocalyptic reality and now consists of 40 chapters, and the text is located at approximately 2000 pages of A4." It is a minor source at best, and while valid, many more like it will probably be needed before the subject merits its own article. --Yamamoto114 (talk) 03:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yea, I'm not considering it a source for Fallout: Equestria as an article, but it does help on the main MLP:FIM page about fanworks. Hence why a redirect there would be appropriate since there's at least a slim chance that the term is searchable and redirects are cheap. --MASEM (t) 17:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- I understand. I guess I'm just somewhat against a redirect, as they're easier to "undo", and it seems like this fanbase would be pretty quick to do that, judging by everything going on in this AFD... Sergecross73 msg me 18:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- "Delete, salt, then redirect" is always an option... Axem Titanium (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- There is a very very very slim chance it could be notable in the future. (it's certainly not nonsense or infactual). I would just plainly redirect for the time being though semi-prot the redirect to avoid expansion without verification that expansion is warranted. --MASEM (t) 23:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- The fact that you used three "very"s before "slim" makes me think it's so unlikely a "Delete, Salt, Redirect" probably would be a better choice. An admin is needed to removing something being salted, correct? With this fanbase, I'd prefer an admin having to make that call on notability. (No offense to you Masem. Upon re-reading that, I wanted to make sure you know I wasn't inferring you'd bring the article back before it should it would every hypothetically be warranted.) Sergecross73 msg me 01:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- I guess that in the larger scheme of WP, if there's a chance this material could be used, however, slim, and we have a history to store it in, redirecting without deletion is a better option. Again, if it were flatout nonsense , or unsourced information, sure off to the bit bucket with it. --MASEM (t) 04:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- The fact that you used three "very"s before "slim" makes me think it's so unlikely a "Delete, Salt, Redirect" probably would be a better choice. An admin is needed to removing something being salted, correct? With this fanbase, I'd prefer an admin having to make that call on notability. (No offense to you Masem. Upon re-reading that, I wanted to make sure you know I wasn't inferring you'd bring the article back before it should it would every hypothetically be warranted.) Sergecross73 msg me 01:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- There is a very very very slim chance it could be notable in the future. (it's certainly not nonsense or infactual). I would just plainly redirect for the time being though semi-prot the redirect to avoid expansion without verification that expansion is warranted. --MASEM (t) 23:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- "Delete, salt, then redirect" is always an option... Axem Titanium (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- I understand. I guess I'm just somewhat against a redirect, as they're easier to "undo", and it seems like this fanbase would be pretty quick to do that, judging by everything going on in this AFD... Sergecross73 msg me 18:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yea, I'm not considering it a source for Fallout: Equestria as an article, but it does help on the main MLP:FIM page about fanworks. Hence why a redirect there would be appropriate since there's at least a slim chance that the term is searchable and redirects are cheap. --MASEM (t) 17:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Looks like the source was used to support a mention of Fallout: Equestria on the My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic article. Here is the source in question, and it appears to be a news report in a magazine/newspaper. Relevant excerpt, translated from Polish via Google: "The longest of them - 'Fallout: Equestria' - set in post-apocalyptic reality and now consists of 40 chapters, and the text is located at approximately 2000 pages of A4." It is a minor source at best, and while valid, many more like it will probably be needed before the subject merits its own article. --Yamamoto114 (talk) 03:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- I found that reliable source (a polish paper) that gives the claim to F:E as being 2000+ A4 pages. This I've used to include fan fiction mention in the main MLP:FIM article, and including a #Fallout: Equestria anchor. So the term is searchable and thus redirection to the main MLP:FIM article is recommended. --MASEM (t) 20:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - non-notable fan stuff. Only sources seem to be wikia and fansite stuff, which don't count as reliable sources. Sergecross73 msg me 16:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - not very notable, no reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twoflower88 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Do Not Delete - See below
- Re: Noteworthy - Both the Fallout video game series and the My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic television series are noteworthy enough to merit their own Wikipedia articles, as is the brony sub-culture. Fallout: Equestria is widely recognized amongst the fan cultures of both shows, and has gained a prominent place within the brony sub-culture. It is highly regarded enough that it is currently being translated into four languages. To the best of my knowledge, virtually all coverage of this work is by sites and groups dedicated to the parent intellectual properties, including sites dedicated to news regarding those properties.
- Re: Reliable Sources Sources meet WP:IRS standards as per the Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources page (Definition of 'reliable source')
- The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings:
- the piece of work itself (the article, book),
- the creator of the work (the writer, journalist),
- and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press).
- Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both.
- The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings:
- The article sites sources which include both the first (piece of work itself) and the second (the writer). The definition of "publishing", according to Wikipedia's article on Publishing is "the process of production and dissemination of literature or information — the activity of making information available to the general public. In some cases, authors may be their own publishers, meaning: originators and developers of content also provide media to deliver and display the content for the same." By Wikipedia's own definition, Equestria Daily and other sites that host internet works do qualify as "publishers of the work" and thus the article fulfills the third criteria for reliable sources as well. If additional sources of distribution are required, they can also be provided. 75.87.248.119 (talk) 02:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- The types of sources that establish notability are ones that are independent from the content in question. Neither the "piece of work" or "the writer" qualify as this. Sources that establish notability would be, for instance, if IGN or The New York Times did an article on it. None of the sources you just provided do though. Sergecross73 msg me 03:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Neither of the examples given, IGN and The New York Times, report on either this style of publication or subsection of culture. It is impossible to establish notability from sources "independent from the content in question" when all sources which would report on this are immediately classified as being non-independent in order to prevent establishment of notability. For example: Equestria Daily is a site which compiles and reports on news and interest pieces for one of the subcultures in question, as well as publishes stories by member of that subculture which pass through a rigorous quality control screening. It is not a "fan site" for Fallout: Equestria, yet it is being conveniently dismissed as a "reliable source" -- apparently because it can be used as a source. 64.126.161.222 (talk) 08:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Equestria Daily does not fit Wikipedia's definition of a WP:RS. I mean, look no further than the opening paragraph of it's own article: Equestria Daily... is 2011-established fan site dedicated to news and fan fiction...The site is run with a blog-style. It's a blog started by a college student a year ago about a cartoon. It's unquestionably not a reliable source. IGN and NYT were just well-known examples that I figured anyone could identify, we don't specifically need coverage by them, but we do need it from somewhere reliable like them. Sergecross73 msg me 13:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Neither of the examples given, IGN and The New York Times, report on either this style of publication or subsection of culture. It is impossible to establish notability from sources "independent from the content in question" when all sources which would report on this are immediately classified as being non-independent in order to prevent establishment of notability. For example: Equestria Daily is a site which compiles and reports on news and interest pieces for one of the subcultures in question, as well as publishes stories by member of that subculture which pass through a rigorous quality control screening. It is not a "fan site" for Fallout: Equestria, yet it is being conveniently dismissed as a "reliable source" -- apparently because it can be used as a source. 64.126.161.222 (talk) 08:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- The types of sources that establish notability are ones that are independent from the content in question. Neither the "piece of work" or "the writer" qualify as this. Sources that establish notability would be, for instance, if IGN or The New York Times did an article on it. None of the sources you just provided do though. Sergecross73 msg me 03:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- The article sites sources which include both the first (piece of work itself) and the second (the writer). The definition of "publishing", according to Wikipedia's article on Publishing is "the process of production and dissemination of literature or information — the activity of making information available to the general public. In some cases, authors may be their own publishers, meaning: originators and developers of content also provide media to deliver and display the content for the same." By Wikipedia's own definition, Equestria Daily and other sites that host internet works do qualify as "publishers of the work" and thus the article fulfills the third criteria for reliable sources as well. If additional sources of distribution are required, they can also be provided. 75.87.248.119 (talk) 02:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Do Not Delete - For a lot of the same reasons already given previously. Fallout: Equestria has become widely renowned and is highly prominent in the brony subculture. It has essentially spawned its own fandom, and is quite deserving in its own right to have this page. I personally don't see why Equestria Daily is not a reliable source. They are essentially the publishers of this story as they are providing the means to disseminate the content to the public. Please do not delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.61.172.231 (talk) 02:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Please read up on WP:RS and WP:GNG in order to understand things better. "Creating your own fandom" doesn't help an article notable, it's coverage in sources that are separate from the source, and not fansites. Sergecross73 msg me 03:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Do Not Delete - This page meets all the requirements that are mentioned above. It was partially written by a third party source, me. I have not written any stories in the Fallout: Equestria series nor have I created any artwork for it. I have created a website devoted to indexing all the information about the stories and it's related works into one place. This is a specialized indexing site and not a fan site. It indexes items that I am not a fan of and in some cases stuff that I do not like. The goal of the site is indexing, not as a site to gush about how great everything is. Does this count as a fan site or a third party site? --Codepony (talk) 02:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Your personal website would not meet the qualifications required to be a WP:RS, it'd be more along the lines of a fansite or blog, which is not a RS. Furthermore, it'd probably be somewhat of a conflict of interest if you're writing the article using sources from your own personal website. Sergecross73 msg me 03:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed --Codepony (talk) 07:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- Your personal website would not meet the qualifications required to be a WP:RS, it'd be more along the lines of a fansite or blog, which is not a RS. Furthermore, it'd probably be somewhat of a conflict of interest if you're writing the article using sources from your own personal website. Sergecross73 msg me 03:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - Please note all three "Do Not Delete" !votes so far have been made by people who haven't contributed anywhere outside the article or it's respective AFD, and share a suspiciously similar, and incorrect, view on what sort of sources establish notability. Sergecross73 msg me 03:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- It should not be a surprise the many of the people (such as myself) who have taken notice of this article and have chosen to defend it against deletion would have similar stances on the article's validity. It is more surprising that Sergecross73 would slyly disparage these other contributors in an attempt to lessen the value perceived in their arguments as opposed than standing on the presumed strength of his own opinions. Let us please try to keep this civil. 64.126.161.222 (talk) 08:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not surprised, and it's pretty common practice to point out when multiple users share the same, flawed argument and act in the same way at an AFD. (For example, not understanding the WP:GNG or what counts as a third party source, their only interest being one single topic, all chosing to write "Do Not Delete" when "Keep" is typically used, etc.) It tends to suggest either sockpuppetry or a fansite sending members over to defend a given topic. Both things the closing Admin should consider. I've done nothing wrong or incivil. Sergecross73 msg me 13:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- By the same merits, then, it should also be pointed out that the large majority of those voting for the deletion of this article are just parroting what you are saying, without adding anything useful to the conversation or demonstrating a grasp of the rules they are attempting to invoke. (For example: "Not notable no sources yadda yadda".) This is suggestive of possible sockpuppetry or, more likely, an anti-brony or anti-fanfiction hate-site sending members over to try to destroy the article out of maliciousness. I will agree that there is reason to debate whether this article meets Wikipedia standards. You should admit that it is reasonable to question the motivations of those who are looking to have the article deleted. There is a strong appearance that this is largely (although certainly not entirely) an effort at within-the-guidelines vandalism by one person with a working knowledge of Wikipedia and his cronies. This undermines the entire process, and is something the closing Admin should also consider.
- I'm not surprised, and it's pretty common practice to point out when multiple users share the same, flawed argument and act in the same way at an AFD. (For example, not understanding the WP:GNG or what counts as a third party source, their only interest being one single topic, all chosing to write "Do Not Delete" when "Keep" is typically used, etc.) It tends to suggest either sockpuppetry or a fansite sending members over to defend a given topic. Both things the closing Admin should consider. I've done nothing wrong or incivil. Sergecross73 msg me 13:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- It should not be a surprise the many of the people (such as myself) who have taken notice of this article and have chosen to defend it against deletion would have similar stances on the article's validity. It is more surprising that Sergecross73 would slyly disparage these other contributors in an attempt to lessen the value perceived in their arguments as opposed than standing on the presumed strength of his own opinions. Let us please try to keep this civil. 64.126.161.222 (talk) 08:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
64.126.161.222 (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'd be interested to know -are there any "anti-brony" sites? I've never even heard of one. Twoflower88 (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. For example, Niggest Crook Force which is an anti-brony group primarily dedicated to using dummy accounts to file fraudulent copyright claims against videos posted on YouTube by bronies, and then advertise their "victories" on disposable hub accounts. To date, their biggest victory was an attack on the brony-orchistrated SMILE Christmas charity for children with cancer. 64.126.161.222 (talk) 07:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- Excuse me I have never met any of you before in my life. Are you saying this is some kind of conspiracy to commit page murder.
- I'd be interested to know -are there any "anti-brony" sites? I've never even heard of one. Twoflower88 (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
XxMiAmIPiMpiNxx (talk) 09:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- If you observe the page history of the original article, you will discover that Fallout: Equestria has already survived vandalism of the sort that Wikipedia is skilled at protecting against. That may have no connection to you (although the timing and expressed attitudes are suspiciously similar). Based on that information, and "contributions" such as your own here, it can be safely extrapolated that there is an effort by multiple parties to kill the article out of prejudice towards the subject matter or similar maliciousness. Whether or not such efforts are co-ordinated would be a matter of speculation. However, it should be noted that there is an anti-fanfiction website called Project A.F.T.E.R. which has taken note of this article. Members of that website have been known to troll and vandalize sites hosting information about fanfictions they are targeting. 64.126.161.222 (talk) 09:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- Okay one that website looks like some interesting reading I've never seen it before and two you can't really justify keeping an article on wikipedia by saying "a lot of pony fans like it". The fact is, there are places for this kind of thing (fan wikis, fan sites, tvtropes, etc) that are not here. Wikipedia's got notability for a reason, and they require published sources for a reason, and this article doesn't belong here. If someone wanted to know about it badly enough they'd be looking on a pony fanfiction site about it, they probably wouldn't expect it to be here. Trying to keep this article, if you will excuse my blatant conjecturing, is just a move to try and improve upon its status from the fans. It's pretty close to vanity imo and, again, doesn't belong here because wikipedia has standards which this doesn't meet. XxMiAmIPiMpiNxx (talk) 10:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- Much better. Now you're actually contributing to the discussion. Allow me to offer my own blatant conjecture. This story recently had a footnote in the "longest novels" article on Wikipedia. Certain individuals who hated the My Little Pony fandom started vandalizing that page. The vandalism was reversed repeatedly, but this sparked an argument over whether "pony shit" belonged on that page (or Wikipedia in general). Arguments against it were made by people trying to hold that entry to Wikipedia's most stringent standards -- standards that an awful lot of the other entries on that page didn't meet. The end result was that not only was the "pony shit" removed from the article, but an entire section of the article was obliterated because the vast majority of the stories mentioned didn't meet the qualifications that anti-bronies were trying to use to surgically remove just the stories they didn't like. In the course of the preceding argument, one of Wikipedia's guardians against vandalism asserted that Fallout: Equestria had enough of a sub-cultural impact that it could soon deserve its own page. It is my conjecture that this article is the result of someone in the brony community reading that argument and saying "well, let's find out". On a related note, this article is part of the coverage of the Fallout series of video games and the influence of those games, part of Wikipedia's Wikiproject Video Games. There are a lot of articles within Wikiproject Video Games (and the Fallout-related section in particular) that do not meet the level of "notability" that people are trying to use to remove this page. A push to remove this article could result in a blow-back that wipes out numerous non-pony, non-fanfiction articles within the Wikiproject Video Games. I don't want to see Wikipedia history repeat itself on a much larger scale. 64.126.161.222 (talk) 11:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- So, you're saying that not only should we keep an article that doesn't adhere to wikipedia's source and notability policies, but we shouldn't take it down because doing so would get rid of many other articles that also don't adhere to these policies? XxMiAmIPiMpiNxx (talk) 11:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm saying that whether this article meets Wikipedia's standards is determined by how liberally or conservatively Wikipedia's policies are interpreted. And that if Wikipedia is serious about projects like Wikiproject Video Games, it benefits them to continue the more liberal interpretations that allow such projects to grow. That means that the Wikipedia admins should not allow people with a prejudice against some subject matter to use extremely conservative interpretations of Wikipedia's Policies to get articles about that subject matter removed. 64.126.161.222 (talk) 12:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- the thing is this article's only notability sources are a bunch of fan stuff. It's not a conservative interpretation, it's actually going against the actual, stated guidelines for sources. Articles get deleted all the time because the only sources they can find are fan publications. This one shouldn't be any different, and if you're claiming that wikipedia should "grow" with unverified non-notable articles then I suggest you write an entry for this work in tvtropes instead. (Oh my god you guys I feel like a real wikipede all of a sudden) XxMiAmIPiMpiNxx (talk) 12:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- TV Tropes has had an article about this story for about half a year now. As for notability sources, the issue I'm seeing is that no one seems to be able to provide a source that would both qualify for notability and would cover web-published fanfiction. For example, this story draws from the Fallout series and thus it falls in the realm of Fallout's impact in other media. However, the very quality that makes it potentially noteworthy in a Fallout article also prohibits it from being published by a for-profit press. So if you restrict "reliable sources" to for-profit presses, you automatically prevent the story or any other like it from ever qualifying -- not based on the merits or influence of the work but on the bias of the policy. Now, as noted above, the Wikipedia policy for "reliable sources" is much broader than that... until all applicable sources for sites and agencies which report on or deal with the subject matter are classified as "a bunch of fan stuff". Equestria Daily is regarded as a "fan site" primarily because it is a site for a subject matter that the people making the classification consider irrelevant. If those same people considered movies irrelevant, they would classify Rotten Tomatoes as a "fan site for movie fans". Sites like IGN are considered "reliable sources" instead of "really big fan sites" largely due to a matter of scale and a predisposition to accept what is being covered as potentially important. At what point does the scope, following and impact of a site move it beyond the threshold of "a bunch of fan stuff" to "a reliable source of information on a specific topic"? And if we strip away the personal biases involved here, have any of the sources cited crossed that threshold? Or gotten close enough to merit keeping the article, although perhaps in a different form? 64.126.161.222 (talk) 14:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- See, you're talking about changing project and site wide standards. This is not the place to do that, or the time to change how we look at sources. You'd do that elsewhere, on a Wikipedia-wide discussion regarding standards for sources and notability. We're talking about this particular article, with the current particular standards. And it just doesn't meet it. Sergecross73 msg me 20:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- TV Tropes has had an article about this story for about half a year now. As for notability sources, the issue I'm seeing is that no one seems to be able to provide a source that would both qualify for notability and would cover web-published fanfiction. For example, this story draws from the Fallout series and thus it falls in the realm of Fallout's impact in other media. However, the very quality that makes it potentially noteworthy in a Fallout article also prohibits it from being published by a for-profit press. So if you restrict "reliable sources" to for-profit presses, you automatically prevent the story or any other like it from ever qualifying -- not based on the merits or influence of the work but on the bias of the policy. Now, as noted above, the Wikipedia policy for "reliable sources" is much broader than that... until all applicable sources for sites and agencies which report on or deal with the subject matter are classified as "a bunch of fan stuff". Equestria Daily is regarded as a "fan site" primarily because it is a site for a subject matter that the people making the classification consider irrelevant. If those same people considered movies irrelevant, they would classify Rotten Tomatoes as a "fan site for movie fans". Sites like IGN are considered "reliable sources" instead of "really big fan sites" largely due to a matter of scale and a predisposition to accept what is being covered as potentially important. At what point does the scope, following and impact of a site move it beyond the threshold of "a bunch of fan stuff" to "a reliable source of information on a specific topic"? And if we strip away the personal biases involved here, have any of the sources cited crossed that threshold? Or gotten close enough to merit keeping the article, although perhaps in a different form? 64.126.161.222 (talk) 14:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- the thing is this article's only notability sources are a bunch of fan stuff. It's not a conservative interpretation, it's actually going against the actual, stated guidelines for sources. Articles get deleted all the time because the only sources they can find are fan publications. This one shouldn't be any different, and if you're claiming that wikipedia should "grow" with unverified non-notable articles then I suggest you write an entry for this work in tvtropes instead. (Oh my god you guys I feel like a real wikipede all of a sudden) XxMiAmIPiMpiNxx (talk) 12:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm saying that whether this article meets Wikipedia's standards is determined by how liberally or conservatively Wikipedia's policies are interpreted. And that if Wikipedia is serious about projects like Wikiproject Video Games, it benefits them to continue the more liberal interpretations that allow such projects to grow. That means that the Wikipedia admins should not allow people with a prejudice against some subject matter to use extremely conservative interpretations of Wikipedia's Policies to get articles about that subject matter removed. 64.126.161.222 (talk) 12:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- So, you're saying that not only should we keep an article that doesn't adhere to wikipedia's source and notability policies, but we shouldn't take it down because doing so would get rid of many other articles that also don't adhere to these policies? XxMiAmIPiMpiNxx (talk) 11:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- Much better. Now you're actually contributing to the discussion. Allow me to offer my own blatant conjecture. This story recently had a footnote in the "longest novels" article on Wikipedia. Certain individuals who hated the My Little Pony fandom started vandalizing that page. The vandalism was reversed repeatedly, but this sparked an argument over whether "pony shit" belonged on that page (or Wikipedia in general). Arguments against it were made by people trying to hold that entry to Wikipedia's most stringent standards -- standards that an awful lot of the other entries on that page didn't meet. The end result was that not only was the "pony shit" removed from the article, but an entire section of the article was obliterated because the vast majority of the stories mentioned didn't meet the qualifications that anti-bronies were trying to use to surgically remove just the stories they didn't like. In the course of the preceding argument, one of Wikipedia's guardians against vandalism asserted that Fallout: Equestria had enough of a sub-cultural impact that it could soon deserve its own page. It is my conjecture that this article is the result of someone in the brony community reading that argument and saying "well, let's find out". On a related note, this article is part of the coverage of the Fallout series of video games and the influence of those games, part of Wikipedia's Wikiproject Video Games. There are a lot of articles within Wikiproject Video Games (and the Fallout-related section in particular) that do not meet the level of "notability" that people are trying to use to remove this page. A push to remove this article could result in a blow-back that wipes out numerous non-pony, non-fanfiction articles within the Wikiproject Video Games. I don't want to see Wikipedia history repeat itself on a much larger scale. 64.126.161.222 (talk) 11:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- Okay one that website looks like some interesting reading I've never seen it before and two you can't really justify keeping an article on wikipedia by saying "a lot of pony fans like it". The fact is, there are places for this kind of thing (fan wikis, fan sites, tvtropes, etc) that are not here. Wikipedia's got notability for a reason, and they require published sources for a reason, and this article doesn't belong here. If someone wanted to know about it badly enough they'd be looking on a pony fanfiction site about it, they probably wouldn't expect it to be here. Trying to keep this article, if you will excuse my blatant conjecturing, is just a move to try and improve upon its status from the fans. It's pretty close to vanity imo and, again, doesn't belong here because wikipedia has standards which this doesn't meet. XxMiAmIPiMpiNxx (talk) 10:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- If you observe the page history of the original article, you will discover that Fallout: Equestria has already survived vandalism of the sort that Wikipedia is skilled at protecting against. That may have no connection to you (although the timing and expressed attitudes are suspiciously similar). Based on that information, and "contributions" such as your own here, it can be safely extrapolated that there is an effort by multiple parties to kill the article out of prejudice towards the subject matter or similar maliciousness. Whether or not such efforts are co-ordinated would be a matter of speculation. However, it should be noted that there is an anti-fanfiction website called Project A.F.T.E.R. which has taken note of this article. Members of that website have been known to troll and vandalize sites hosting information about fanfictions they are targeting. 64.126.161.222 (talk) 09:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- Do Not Delete - This story (to paraphrase another commenter) may have started off as just a work of fanfiction but its influence has grown beyond that in a short period of time, effecting multiple fandoms. The community that has been inspired by this story is continuously growing and deserves to be represented. The story itself is an example of the influence of the Fallout series and is at least as significant a media adaption as the Fallout: Nuka Break video series. Thus, it is noteworthy as part of the impact of Fallout. In addition, the story has inspired over a dozen groups internationally to attempt to create tabletop roleplaying game, many of which draw on some or all of the Fallout video games' mechanics for system design. While these are fan-works of no individual significance, their efforts speak to the story's influence in helping spread the Fallout game to additional venues. 64.126.161.222 (talk) 08:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Baseless claims of the influence of this fanbase does not help prove notability. We need multiple, significant, third party reliable sources that prove it, separate from the source or ED. We need several, and not a single one has been provided yet. Sergecross73 msg me 13:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Try to avoid insulting people you don't agree with. "Does not meet my personal interpretation of significance" is not the same as "baseless". According to the rules for Wikipedia articles, truth is not the same as validity. You can argue that the claims of influence are not valid, but the references should leave no question that the claims of influence are true. And by merit of verifiable, documented accuracy, those claims are not baseless. 64.126.161.222 (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thats not a "personal interpretation". Those are Wikipedia Policies. The only "interpretations" here are the sources on the article. Androids101 | Visit me! | talk | contribs 11:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- "Baseless" isn't an attack on you personally, it's that you still haven't provided any Wikipedia-standard reliable sources that demonstrate this "influence" you speak of. I'd expect someone to do the same to me if I wrote a long paragraph talking about something's influence without listing any sources to back up what I say. Which is why, typically when !vote that I want an article to be kept, I list off a ton of sources that backs up what I say. Sergecross73 msg me 19:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- Either you are using a definition of "influence" that is unfamiliar to me, or you are being deliberately obtuse, or you are using technicalities to maintain denial. The influence of the story -- other stories, art, media, websites dedicated solely to the story, articles on sites related to My Little Pony and Fallout, etc -- is factual and demonstrated through the provided sources. Your arguments are the equivalent of saying "No matter how many pictures you've shown me of black people, you haven't proven black people exist, much less are noteworthy, because none of those photographs are from newspapers." 64.126.161.222 (talk) 08:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- Flawed analogy. Existence=/= notability. I don't deny the existence of this fanfiction. I deny its WP:NOTABILITY, because no reliable third party sources are covering. There's a band down the street that is popular in the area, and has a Facebook page with 20 followers. It proves it exists. But it sure doesn't establish notability. Same concept with this fanfiction and just about any of the sources presented thus far. Sergecross73 msg me 14:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- I think I understand the problem you two are having. Using your analogy, if that band down the street is popular enough to have inspired 20 other bands who follow in the first band's example and pay tribute to it in their songs, and each of those bands had Facebook pages claiming that original band as their inspiration, then that original band has influence. It may still not have WP:NOTABILITY, but claiming that there is no proof of influence, and speaking derisively about claims of influence, is erroneous and belligerent on your part. A large part of the !votes against deletion seem grounded in the concept that influence should count towards WP:NOTABILITY. An understandable confusion since you are the primary voice for deletion, and you keep making the mistake of using them interchangeably. 75.87.248.119 (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- When Sergecross73 uses the word "influence", he means "WP:NOTABILITY". He is mis-using the word; influence ≠ Notability. Fallout: Equestria's influence (as per the dictionary definition of the word) has been established by the article and is not in question. It is Fallout: Equestria's Notability (capital "N", as per the Wikipedia guidelines) that is in question. HTH. 75.87.248.119 (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- What I am saying is that there aren't any reliable third party sources attesting to this "influence", and as such, it can't be used to establish it's notability. That's what matters as far this article goes. Sergecross73 msg me 17:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- Flawed analogy. Existence=/= notability. I don't deny the existence of this fanfiction. I deny its WP:NOTABILITY, because no reliable third party sources are covering. There's a band down the street that is popular in the area, and has a Facebook page with 20 followers. It proves it exists. But it sure doesn't establish notability. Same concept with this fanfiction and just about any of the sources presented thus far. Sergecross73 msg me 14:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- Either you are using a definition of "influence" that is unfamiliar to me, or you are being deliberately obtuse, or you are using technicalities to maintain denial. The influence of the story -- other stories, art, media, websites dedicated solely to the story, articles on sites related to My Little Pony and Fallout, etc -- is factual and demonstrated through the provided sources. Your arguments are the equivalent of saying "No matter how many pictures you've shown me of black people, you haven't proven black people exist, much less are noteworthy, because none of those photographs are from newspapers." 64.126.161.222 (talk) 08:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- Try to avoid insulting people you don't agree with. "Does not meet my personal interpretation of significance" is not the same as "baseless". According to the rules for Wikipedia articles, truth is not the same as validity. You can argue that the claims of influence are not valid, but the references should leave no question that the claims of influence are true. And by merit of verifiable, documented accuracy, those claims are not baseless. 64.126.161.222 (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- Baseless claims of the influence of this fanbase does not help prove notability. We need multiple, significant, third party reliable sources that prove it, separate from the source or ED. We need several, and not a single one has been provided yet. Sergecross73 msg me 13:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- DELETE Brony subculture is nowhere near important enough to warrant several articles about mediocre fan works — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.198.7.65 (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment While there are several strong reasons as to why this article should be deleted, your personal disposition towards the subject matter in question is not one of them. --Yamamoto114 (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment A quick note regarding sources - a good rule of thumb for checking if something is a reliable source is this: Could you go on that site right now, register an account, and post an article? For example, you could go on deviantART and plug your fanfiction story, but you can not go on the New York Times website and plug your fanfiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twoflower88 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- The DeviantArt reference is, to the best of my understanding, there merely as evidence supporting the article's statement regarding art communities and the impressive amount of works that have been inspired by Fallout: Equestria. Regardless of whether it is a "reliable source" for purposes of notability, the reference does help establish the accuracy of facts stated in the article. Regarding that rule of thumb, it should be noted that Equestria Daily passes that test. 75.87.248.119 (talk) 04:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- But it is still a user-contributed content. I could go on deviantart and write a blatant hoax and would the hoax gets its own WP article? Nope. Androids101 | Visit me! | talk | contribs 11:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- Before commenting, it might be a good idea to pay attention to what the person you are responding to has actually said. The references you are complaining do not meet Wikipedia's standards as "reliable sources" aren't doing things that require they meet that classification to do. The article says that the story has inspired (amongst other things) numerous artworks. It then provides a reference link which, when you follow it, takes you to a deviantart page with, ta-da, hundreds of artworks inspired by the story. The deviantart reference does exactly what it is intended to do, and it doesn't need to be a "wikipedia-quality reliable resource" to do it. If you get hit in the head with a rock, that pretty well establishes that rocks exist, even if the person who threw it at you doesn't work for a geology department. 64.126.161.222 (talk) 13:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- deviantART was merely an example of something you can log on and instantly post something. I was not talking about the use of it in the article. Twoflower88 (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- Before commenting, it might be a good idea to pay attention to what the person you are responding to has actually said. The references you are complaining do not meet Wikipedia's standards as "reliable sources" aren't doing things that require they meet that classification to do. The article says that the story has inspired (amongst other things) numerous artworks. It then provides a reference link which, when you follow it, takes you to a deviantart page with, ta-da, hundreds of artworks inspired by the story. The deviantart reference does exactly what it is intended to do, and it doesn't need to be a "wikipedia-quality reliable resource" to do it. If you get hit in the head with a rock, that pretty well establishes that rocks exist, even if the person who threw it at you doesn't work for a geology department. 64.126.161.222 (talk) 13:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- But it is still a user-contributed content. I could go on deviantart and write a blatant hoax and would the hoax gets its own WP article? Nope. Androids101 | Visit me! | talk | contribs 11:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- The DeviantArt reference is, to the best of my understanding, there merely as evidence supporting the article's statement regarding art communities and the impressive amount of works that have been inspired by Fallout: Equestria. Regardless of whether it is a "reliable source" for purposes of notability, the reference does help establish the accuracy of facts stated in the article. Regarding that rule of thumb, it should be noted that Equestria Daily passes that test. 75.87.248.119 (talk) 04:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - what is this doing on my wikipedias XxMiAmIPiMpiNxx (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - It helps more if you explain your stance a little. Otherwise it could be overlooked like any other comment that doesn't really address Wikipedia policy... Sergecross73 msg me 20:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- oh, right, sorry. Not notable no sources yadda yadda XxMiAmIPiMpiNxx (talk) 21:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Er, very helpful contribution. Not. Twoflower88 (talk) 01:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Which are valid Wikipedia policies. I agree with Sergecross73 - what is your point? Androids101 | Visit me! | talk | contribs 11:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Er, very helpful contribution. Not. Twoflower88 (talk) 01:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- oh, right, sorry. Not notable no sources yadda yadda XxMiAmIPiMpiNxx (talk) 21:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - It helps more if you explain your stance a little. Otherwise it could be overlooked like any other comment that doesn't really address Wikipedia policy... Sergecross73 msg me 20:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete (obviously...) I think the reasons are really obvious. Wikia? Deviantart? Youtube? Equestriadaily.com which blatantly violates WP:THIRDPARTY? Does not meet WP:N at all. Androids101 | Visit me! | talk | contribs 11:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete without prejudice. If it's as important and notable as proponents claim, it will eventually meet notability guidelines. Recreate the article if/when it does. Until then, this is just fancruft. --Ashenai (talk) 11:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I can't believe that this was created in the first place. It violates a ton of guidelines. Seriously, why does this have a page? 99.230.221.138 (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:PONY.
Gobōnobo + c 22:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- So your argument is
based off ofa joke essay? Sergecross73 msg me 22:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)- Well, we are arguing over ponies, so WP:PONY must be relevant!(I'm joking, of course.) Twoflower88 (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- Lol, what about the humor template? The article was kept as it is considered humourous. Also, aren't images disallowed in signatures? Androids101 | Visit me! | talk | contribs 02:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- Please note: this redirects to "No, you cant have pony." It's Wikipedia policy: pony articles have no place on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a firm anti-pony stance and articles like this one are nothing but blatant attempts to move Wikipedia to a neutral or even pro-pony stance. This will not be allowed. Please review "No, you can't have pony." Discussion closed. (More seriously, considering the high number of vandalism attempts on this article in the last 24 hours, Wikipedia admins might want to consider removing the page just to save themselves the hassle.) 75.87.248.119 (talk) 02:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well, we are arguing over ponies, so WP:PONY must be relevant!(I'm joking, of course.) Twoflower88 (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- So your argument is
- Delete Delete, delete, delete! There's no place on Wikipedia for non-notable fanfiction. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does, however, have a place for notable [[9]] fanfiction. 64.126.161.222 (talk) 08:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- And Fallout Equestria is far, far from notable. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- Based on what? Because you don't like it? Because you don't like the Fallout games, maybe? What makes Fallout: Equestria "far, far" less notable than Pinjar, Time's Champion, The Enchanted Duplicator and Another Hope? 64.126.161.222 (talk) 09:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- Based on Wikipedia Policy and guidelines, such as WP:N. It fails most or all of the criteria under the General Notability Guidelines. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- So, my point is that there is precedent for this article's inclusion on Wikipedia, and your argument is that the article doesn't hold to standards that articles about similar subject matter haven't been regularly subject to anyway? 64.126.161.222 (talk) 09:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- Invalid argument - read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Androids101 | Visit me! | talk | contribs 10:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." - read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS 64.126.161.222 (talk) 10:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- The burden of proof, however, rests on those who advocate keeping the page by demonstrating why WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is being "used correctly" in being "consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. Precedent or no precedent, a reasonable application of WP:N cannot provide the necessary notability for this page. The argument is not that this page should be deleted because people don't like it (which you are attacking quite vigorously, but is still beside the point), but rather that its content is simply not notable. 125.51.213.174 (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- The question is - are you using it correctly? What you're basically saying is that we disregard WP:N because some other articles also violate WP:N and yet they are allowed to "stay". This is the point of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Androids101 | Visit me! | talk | contribs 07:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- You are correct. Listing off "less-notable" fan-fiction articles doesn't help this article, it just points out that those article may warrant deletion as well. Sergecross73 msg me 12:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." - read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS 64.126.161.222 (talk) 10:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- Invalid argument - read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Androids101 | Visit me! | talk | contribs 10:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- So, my point is that there is precedent for this article's inclusion on Wikipedia, and your argument is that the article doesn't hold to standards that articles about similar subject matter haven't been regularly subject to anyway? 64.126.161.222 (talk) 09:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- Based on Wikipedia Policy and guidelines, such as WP:N. It fails most or all of the criteria under the General Notability Guidelines. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- Based on what? Because you don't like it? Because you don't like the Fallout games, maybe? What makes Fallout: Equestria "far, far" less notable than Pinjar, Time's Champion, The Enchanted Duplicator and Another Hope? 64.126.161.222 (talk) 09:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- And Fallout Equestria is far, far from notable. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does, however, have a place for notable [[9]] fanfiction. 64.126.161.222 (talk) 08:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Нихрена себе тут срач развели — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.34.174.199 (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Redirect to My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic: I can't see any notability demostrated in the article (EqD falls way short), but, per Masem, I think a brief mention is warranted when discussing brony subculture. Sceptre (talk) 02:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Delete this page. Fanfiction does not deserve full Wikipedia articles no matter how lengthy or well-written they are. It has had very far from a universal effect on the world - I've only just heard of it today - and it will only interest one group of people: bronies. Wikipedia articles should aim to aattract the interest of more than one group of people, not just a crazy Internet following. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.82.210.247 (talk) 06:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Time's Champion, Fallout: Nuka Break, Another Hope? Not suggesting they should be deleted, but I do think it points out a flaw in your rather biased opinion. --Codepony (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well, the IP's reasoning is a little off, fan fiction can be mentioned, but it's needs the proper third party coverage in reliable sources, the same thing that has written up and down this page. This is something that is lacking with Fallout Equestria. Your examples are not in the same league. For instance, Time's Champion received coverage from the BBC, a very major third party source, and was even legitimately published as a real book. Sergecross73 msg me 18:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- "I do think it points out a flaw in your rather biased opinion."-Look at what you just wrote, and think hard for a second. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.248.70.217 (talk) 06:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- How much of an entitlement complex do you need to type that. Seriously. This fanfic is in no way notable, nor does it have any non-biased sources. I hate how internet people always assume that because their fangroup was influenced by a work, the work can be considered highly influential. 38.116.202.11 (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- "I do think it points out a flaw in your rather biased opinion."-Look at what you just wrote, and think hard for a second. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.248.70.217 (talk) 06:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well, the IP's reasoning is a little off, fan fiction can be mentioned, but it's needs the proper third party coverage in reliable sources, the same thing that has written up and down this page. This is something that is lacking with Fallout Equestria. Your examples are not in the same league. For instance, Time's Champion received coverage from the BBC, a very major third party source, and was even legitimately published as a real book. Sergecross73 msg me 18:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Time's Champion, Fallout: Nuka Break, Another Hope? Not suggesting they should be deleted, but I do think it points out a flaw in your rather biased opinion. --Codepony (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete No sources, not notable, not something that requires a wikipedia page. I'm sure that someone could make a page for it on a more appropriate wiki. 38.116.202.11 (talk) 14:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Your attempts at trolling the article itself (such as this: [[10]]) have been logged by Wikipedia and are available for review by the administration. I'm sure they will give the opinions of people who vandalize their wiki all due consideration. 75.87.248.119 (talk) 15:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Please assume good faith. The argument presented is not illegitimate. -Rushyo Talk 16:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:N, WP:RS and WP:VGSCOPE. The arguments I've seen presented above for keep are either not based in WP policy or directly contradict WP policy (implying WP:COI and WP:USERGENERATED). However well presented the article is, there's no argument here which suggests it is valid encyclopedic content at the moment and Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. -Rushyo Talk 15:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Not that I don't love the story, but does this really deserve it's own page? I only see one fanfiction mentioned on wikipedia, and it was published as an actual book. Fallout: Equestria isn't any more notable than "Half: Life Full Life Consequences", "Cupcakes", or "Past Sins." If you really feel like you need to put this story on a wiki, put it on the mlp wiki, or Know You're Meme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flightoftheshadowbolts (talk • contribs) 15:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete At first I thought why not keep it but it is true that it does not meet notability rules. Maybe on some site like ED it would deserve its own page, but not here. However I dont think all mention of this fanfic should be wiped from Wikipedia. It should get its own section in the MLP fandom page, obviously a much condensed version of this. Racingfreak92 (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- 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.
<--
-->
- 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 Delete - with the understanding that many people voting on this AfD are not familiar with Wikipedia policy, please note that AfD discussions are not a matter of counting votes, but rather of gaining rough consensus based on the weight and appropriateness of policy as it pertains to the article.
As has been noted below, the subject of this article currently fails our standards of notability. Firstly, our general notability guidelines. These state that the subject of the article must have been the subject (in a non-trivial manner) of numerous, independent, secondary sources. The sources currently available on the article are PR pieces from the gentlemen's agency and small obituary notices.
The second objection to the article's inclusion on Wikipedia was that the subject fails our notability guidelines for entertainers. Specifically, this refers to the need for the subject to have had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. This is simply not the case here.
I offer this long closing in the hope that those who are new to Wikipedia will understand the rational behind both the deletion votes and this outcome. However, should anyone have any questions, please do feel free to ask me on my talk page. Should anyone wish to have the article moved to their userspace, they need only ask. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}. |
- Thomas Bridegroom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
May fail WP:ENT. Article was created by Shanebitneycrone (talk · contribs), who I believe was the now-deceased subject's partner. This video is of relevance to the subjects. See also, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shane Bitney Crone. Pyrrhus16 12:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Merge. This is an important aspect of the same-sex marriage issue and lack of marital rights regarding funeral and hospital visitation rights. but Thomas Bridegroom himself is not notable (yet). --Joshuaism (talk) 12:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- I viewed the video posted on youtube and immediately Googled Thomas Bridegroom. Since I am an unrelated person with no ties to either him, his partner, or his family I believe his story is compelling enough and spreading rapidly enough to justify maintaining this page.--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by WillowLily (talk • contribs) 13:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Please make an argument founded in Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Wikipedia is not based upon subjective ideas of inclusion/exclusion. What you believe to be compelling is irrelevant. Uncle G (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- I am not sure why anyone would consider this article for deletion. Shane Bitney Crone wants to leave a mark for an amazing man, a man he loved with everything he had. A man who was taken way too soon and a man he was never able to properly say goodbye to. This article has every right to stay and should stay. Stay strong Shane! You are an AMAZING man and you deserve all the happiness in the world. I also hear Ellen has heard of your story, I hope this goes viral and that people really see what needs to be done in this country regarding same-sex marriage issue and to protect people like you. <3 comment added by cmcgalrd —Preceding undated comment added 13:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC).
- Please make an argument founded in Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Your idea of articles having "rights" is nonsense. Moreover, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a memorial, nor a soapbox. Uncle G (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- I also agree this page should not be deleted. - B in Georgia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.66.251.130 (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Please make an argument founded in Wikipedia:Deletion policy that explains why. Uncle G (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- UncleG, please make an argument founded in Wikipedia:Deletion policy that explains why you want this page deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.71.193.131 (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- That's the sort of response one gets in a schoolyard, and daft considering that I've said nothing at all on the matter either way. Try not being silly, 69.71.193.131, and making a proper, policy-compliant, argument for what you think should happen. Uncle G (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- You are also sidestepping a legitimate request for the reason of your intention for this article's deletion. I again request: Uncle G, please make an argument founded in Wikipedia:Deletion policy. If you cannot, do not bother to reply. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.6.33 (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- You have completely missed the point. You are asking Uncle G to justify his intention for deleting the article when he has expressed no such opinion. All he has done is point out to participants in this discussion is that arguments need to be based on policy. -- Whpq (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- You are also sidestepping a legitimate request for the reason of your intention for this article's deletion. I again request: Uncle G, please make an argument founded in Wikipedia:Deletion policy. If you cannot, do not bother to reply. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.6.33 (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- That's the sort of response one gets in a schoolyard, and daft considering that I've said nothing at all on the matter either way. Try not being silly, 69.71.193.131, and making a proper, policy-compliant, argument for what you think should happen. Uncle G (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- UncleG, please make an argument founded in Wikipedia:Deletion policy that explains why you want this page deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.71.193.131 (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Please make an argument founded in Wikipedia:Deletion policy that explains why. Uncle G (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- I also came across this page after seeing the YouTube video, and googling Mr. Bridegroom's name. The relevant video has a very high number of views and shares, and this trend will likely continue as the current debate about rights to same-sex couples continues, especially in light of N. Carolina's recently passed amendment. To me, this is a 'viral video' which qualifies for recognition in Wikipedia. I just checked, and the Nyan Cat has a undisputed page. Although I understand the argument that this story in itself is not entirely unique, the video made by his partner has reached a level of recognition justifying the Wikipedia entry. (At least to the extent a GIF cat made out of a pop-tart warrants.)~~Chasina R, Portland, OR~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.192.183 (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Do not delete. Regardless of who initially created the article, the person has notability far outside of their profession as an "Entertainer" (WP:ENT). I do not find any sufficient arguments for deletion listed in Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Scott Teresi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC).
As an attorney, I can state without hesitation, that this needs to remain intact. His life is not a secret, and the embarrassment of the immediate family does not constitute deletion. Gay and Lesbian persons will soon share equal rights with us all. 20 years ago we many not have believed a black president was a possibility, but our current [black] president is in support of gay marriage. There is no warrent under the stated guidelines that allows for deletion of this and, in fact, deletion would open the gates to discrimination lawsuits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hodge2011 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Mr. Bridegroom's work, and public interest after his death are enough to meet the notability guideline of the Deletion Policy. If family members of his are suggesting that this Wiki be deleted, they should be advised to instead supply additional content to this Wiki entry. ~ S. A. Talbert — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan47305 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - but hold on First of all I'd like to say Keep. However, the rules of WP are that more than one independent verifiable source which provides significant coverage of the subject is required to satisfy notability so I have to say Delete. My view is that he probably is notable - but this article doesn't (yet) prove it. So - get to your local library and find some sources. To put it bluntly - if he's dead - all you need are two newspaper obituaries and your problems are solved. Cite these in the talk page, or if you don't know how to - provide the details (if it's a newspaper and not on the internet) and/or links and ask an editor to help you cite them properly on the article. With two such sources, notability should be satisfied and the delete arguments should dissipate. First4Uppingham (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep. I think this is history for the LGBT community. Also Thomas Bridegroom seemed to be a notable person, hosted a TV show on MTV for example. Keverw (talk) 11:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep. The video circulating about his death has over a million views on Youtube, it's major news now whether or not it would have been significant on its own merits. Binerman (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
KEEP. The YouTube video is powerful. People are going to keep googling him and coming to Wikipedia to find out more information. 184.32.6.164 (talk) audrhi —Preceding undated comment added 19:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC).
- merge as the sensible compromise solution, but I am not sure in which direction. DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- merge, as per Joshuaism's observations. It is not appropriate for a wikipedia page to be created by someone personally involved, and it appears that both members of this couple created each other's pages - the irony being that at the time they probably thought no-one would ever pick up this fact. The subject-matter of the video is highly relevant, though, for articles on the topic of recognition of same-sex couples and a reference to the video would be appropriate there (and searches for Bridegroom's name would pick this up).Orfeocookie (talk) 04:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- Questions. Let me attempt to nutshell the subject: Bridegroom's main claim to fame is as the subject of a short video made by his bereaved boyfriend, who uploaded it to Youtube, where many people have watched it. Have I got that wrong? If I haven't, why even merge, anywhere? Certainly I don't immediately see signs of other notability. (Looking at the external links, I see "Model and TV Host Tom Bridegroom Tells Guys to Try SensiClear Acne Treatment" and worse.) I do understand that the video is said to be significant. Is the claim of significance (a) on the strength of what it says, (b) for its impact (as measured by press coverage etc), or (c) for its great number of views? If (a), this is not encyclopedic. (Nothing ideological about this: its opposite, a homophobic rant, would in itself be equally unencyclopedic.) If (b) (as is claimed in the article on Crone), where is this coverage? If (c), I do note that it has been viewed 1.8 million times, which does seem impressive until I consider how very many people there are who watch a great number of youtubes. "Guy Catches Laptop with His Butt", for example, has got 4.2 million views, and the short list of related videos that Youtube served me for it (and the list it gives you may differ) included eight that had had over 2 million views. -- Hoary (talk) 08:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - Thomas Bridegroom was not notable enough and most of the information is not verified, it is a rehashing of the video, so opinions, not established facts. Emotion should not drive what is a Wiki worthy topic. Scottca075 Scottca075 (talk) 16:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- KEEP: The truth is that the Thomas Bridegroom U-tube video has entered and already become an important part of the gay marriage deabte on both sides of the Atlantic and is currently being shared extensively on Facebook - which very much can be verified (and justifies it being considered notable). I detect, sadly, a strong whiff of subjective prejudice and bigotry, masquerading under a rather "holier than thou" interpretration of Wiki's clear guidlines, in some of the comments above. Patricklt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patricklt (talk • contribs) 19:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- The truth is that the Thomas Bridegroom U-tube video has entered and already become an important part of the gay marriage [debate] on both sides of the Atlantic: Then please augment and improve the article so that it has reliable evidence of this truth. -- Hoary (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep: I have briefly reviewed the guidelines that instruct why and how WikiPedia articles are to be deleted; in short, I can find no reasonable explanation why this article merits consideration for deletion. In a retort above, user Uncle G suggests that the burden of proof be upon those who think that the article should be kept. It seems straightforward that the burden of proof to explain why an article should be deleted should be bourne by those who want the article removed. If this is not official policy, I think WikiMedia would do well to make it such. User Uncle G's requests to refer to specific policies officious. The article should stand for the reasons set forth by other users above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhumburg (talk • contribs) 19:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Deletion policy says: Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following [...] Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed[;] Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth) [...]. It seems to me that (i) a large percentage of the article (as yet) lacks verification by reliable sources, and (ii) notability ("WP:BIO") is lacking. -- Hoary (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep: His death by itself is not notable enough to qualify for a page; However, the You-Tube video that goes along with his life is. More information should be added to this page. -- kraamerXmich (talk) 12:37, 14 May 2012
- Please go ahead and add (reliably sourced) information to the article. -- Hoary (talk) 12:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: What an interesting bunch of users there are in this AfD, including (but perhaps not limited to): Cmcgalrd (the one edit above, only); WillowLily (ditto); Patricklt (ditto); Alan47305 (ditto); Hodge2011 (the two edits above, only); Keverw (first edit in nine months, and fifth ever); First4Uppingham (indefinitely blocked by Uncle G: Disruption spree at AFD from multiple accounts); Kraamerxmich (started editing on 14 May, every edit has been about Bridegroom). -- Hoary (talk) 13:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - I see no coverage in independent reliable sources about the subject that establishes notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, or else Merge the individual user pages into a single article discussing the YouTube video and the people (Tom & Shane). I saw the video, then googled Tom Bridegroom and found the WikiPedia entry. There is journalistic / archival value in being able to learn more about the story, particularly given the large number of people who are watching the story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JHGrove3 (talk • contribs)
- Keep. Not only has the YouTube video about him gone viral, but a number of news services have done stories about it, including CNN ("Gay Man's Poignant Video Goes Viral", CNN Newsroom, May 15th, 2012). MishaPan (talk) 03:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, or possibly merge. As for the argument that "attempts to find reliable sources to verify [the article] have failed," (from WP:DEL#REASON) I believe you are only looking at one (admittedly important) section of the article. His filmography, while brief, is certainly verifiable by reliable sources (IMDb, MTV). His obituary is also "reliable." I believe that, with a little effort and research, reliable sources could be found to verify the sections in question (i.e. his background, orientation, relationship, and the events occuring between his death and funeral). Moreover, CNN has already had wind of this story, so I wouldn't be surprised if more sources popped up. I do, however, think that the article also needs rewritten--it sounds more like an ad than an objective article ("the prestigious Culver Military Academy", and the entire Personal life section). However, with regard to deletion, the most important question I see is whether he has "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." [emphasis mine] (from WP:BIO) To me, it seems that he plays a significant role in only one television show, and not one of major interest. If this article were solely about Thomas Bridegroom's career as an actor, I would say he should only be mentioned in an article about The_X_Effect. However, I could argue that he plays a significant role in an "other production"--the YouTube video. I think he may deserve an article because he has two publicized roles (YouTube video and X Effect) that are very unrelated, and that drawing that link may be the main use for this article. My only qualm about this is that this is a very recent rise to "fame" (if it can be called that), and it's difficult to predict the long-term value of this article. Looking at Google Insights, I see that there was only a short spike in interest, but I also see that there still a bit of interest. I believe that this article has encylopaedic value, even if only to a few thousand people who want to research after watching the YouTube video. However, if all media coverage stops and interest in his story dies out, I would be more comfortable seeing this information merged into pages about "It Could Happen to You" and The_X_Effect. I also must say that the "Personal life" section sounds more like a transcription of the YouTube video than an informative section, and to deserve my "Keep," I think it needs revamped. (Sorry for the long comment!) Emolution (talk) 08:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, Thomas Bridegroom hosted The X Effect on MTV, a show that has aired all over the world and still airs today. That is notable on it's own. Aside from hosting an international TV on a major network he has appeared in numerous national commercial and print campaigns. All you have to do is GOOGLE Tom Bridegroom. To say that Tom is not Notable and that Shane Bitney Crone's video "It Could Happen To You" isn't widespread enough that is incorrect. I have been following this story and following Tom and Shane and Shane has done interviews with the TV shows The Insider on CBS, E News on E!, and The Newsroom on CNN. RadarOnline featured the story as well as The Huffington Post, La repubblica (Italy's top newspaper). The video has over 2.3 million views and although the momentum has slowed down slightly it would be absolutely shameful to delete Shane Bitney Crone and Thomas Bridegroom's Wikipedia pages (Whether they created them or not is irrelevant) because their story has now been covered all over the world and it will forever be a part of the gay rights movement. Just google Tom or Shane's name and there are HUNDREDS of media outlets that have covered this story/video. Shane even said in an interview he was been approached by numerous production companies to turn this into a movie. If these Wikipedia pages are deleted it will turn into a news story itself that ONCE AGAIN Tom Bridegroom's life is trying to be erased and people are trying to erase the fact that their relationship ever existed. User: LivingSpaces 08:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livingspaces (talk • contribs)
- Keep: I don't see sufficient need to delete based on section one of the delete guidelines that instruct why and how WikiPedia articles are to be deleted. The issues cited can be addressed individually. Deletion is not justified under section one. Regarding "Failing all criteria", I think he met the minimum notability based on MTV alone. SkipR 21:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryper (talk • contribs)
- 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.
<--
-->