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)[reply]

Fallout: Equestria

[edit]
Fallout: Equestria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • 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)[reply]

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:
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 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Agreed --Codepony (talk) 07:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.

64.126.161.222 (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.

XxMiAmIPiMpiNxx (talk) 09:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 &#124 Visit me! | talk | contribs 11:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does, however, have a place for notable [[1]] fanfiction. 64.126.161.222 (talk) 08:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And Fallout Equestria is far, far from notable. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Invalid argument - read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Androids101 | Visit me! | talk | contribs 10:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Нихрена себе тут срач развели — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.34.174.199 (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Your attempts at trolling the article itself (such as this: [[2]]) 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)[reply]
Please assume good faith. The argument presented is not illegitimate. -Rushyo Talk 16:12, 18 May 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.
More