Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fallout Wiki

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The central point in this debate is whether the sources that Haleth provided are sufficient to establish notability. Of those, the Kotaku sources are probably the most substantial. An argument against these sources counting for notability is that they are more about the preceding wikis than the new Fallout Wiki and that the coverage of the latter is more tangential. However, the article contains information about the history of the preceding wikis as well, so it can be argued that the article's subject is wider than its title would suggest. I do not necessarily agree with that perspective, but find that the "keep" position has merit to it. As to level of support for each position, while there is a sizable majority for deletion it is not so large that I can call it a consensus. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fallout Wiki

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Fallout Wiki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not look to pass GNG, only trivial coverage. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs) 17:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs) 17:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not notable. —FORMALDUDE (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- passes WP:GNG. There are five references that are significant coverage along with additional four. enjoyer -- talk 03:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Let's take a look at the sources to determine if they represent sustained, significant coverage. Nine citations. Two are from the subject in question, a fan-wiki, making it WP:USERG. 4 of the 7 remaining mention The Vault explicitly. Of these, basically none are actually about The Vault. The Kotaku and Eurogamer sources are about fans spending a lot of time editing it. One is about the person who started it. None of these constitute SIGCOF. Subject isn't notable to anyone outside of "a small population of enthusiastic fans". — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 23:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NEXIST. The current Fallout Fandom site is actually a merger from two Fallout Wikis, Nukapedia and the Vault, as reflected in the article subtitle and its contents. And there has been sustained coverage about both Nukapedia and the Vault with sources that has yet to be cited in the article:
Fallout Fans Continue To Struggle With The Company That Hosts Their Wiki
Fallout Fans Resist Wikia’s Attempt To Pivot To Video
Fans Spend 54 Years Writing New Vegas Wiki
The Vault Wiki was also cited by reliable publications as a source and something of an involved 3rd party during the legal battle between Bethesda and Interplay.
Battle over Fallout Online MMO rages on
Interplay responds to Bethesda's 'absurd' claim that its Fallout MMO can't involve Fallout
Bethesda Claims Interplay Wants to “Undermine” Fallout
It is rare for fan Wikis to get that kind of coverage to warrant a standalone Wikipedia article, but in this case it does exist. Haleth (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. The sources in the article do not present significant coverage. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 04:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:ARTN under the notability guideline page, article content does not determine notability, which is the property of the subject in question, and when the source material exists, even a lack of adequate sourcing within the article itself will not decrease the subject's notability. The Kotaku articles I brought up discussed one of the Fallout wiki predecessors specifically and in detail, and the article has yet to cite them. Also, ImaginesTigers' source analysis is incorrect; the articles are specifically about the Vault and its status as one of the largest and most popular wiki sites at the time, not at all a general discussion about the activities of Fallout fandom and other fansites as they claimed. Haleth (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In case it's helpful, I'll point out that the discussion should probably focus more on the additional sources identified by Haleth, particularly (1) and (2), both by Kotaku/VICE writer Gita Jackson. Debateably WP:SIGCOV, but certainly not "passing mentions". Suriname0 (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Two separate full-length articles by the same author/source count in aggregate as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability, so it is not up for debate whether it is in fact WP:SIGCOV. The question would be, how much of the extent of available sources within and outside of the article is enough to meet the WP:SIGCOV threshold, and there is no vetted objective standard for the concept as every editor has different standards and metrics on how much is enough. Haleth (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sources are trivial with the exception of the two articles from Kotaku. However, as they have the same author it really isn’t enough RS to meet the multiple sources criteria of GNG.4meter4 (talk) 05:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Haleth. Sources are sparse indeed, and I too am not sure if they are sufficient. But compared with the dozens or hundreds of other fandom sites out there, this actually has some sources to show for it. And so I'm leaning keep here. --LordPeterII (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not pass WP:SIGCOV -- unlike Haleth, I find that the sources don't deal with the subject in depth, but only deal with certain related events, basically disputes between a community on the internet and a certain company, which is an immense trope of the videogame culture and the internet as a whole, and not specific to the subject at all -- none of these sources tell us that much about the subject. The Destructoid article Fans spend 58 years updating the Fallout New Vegas wiki covers a brief phase of the subject's history. That actually appears to be the strongest reference. However, that article is three short paragraphs long, because it essentially addresses a single piece of information, a spike in activity in 2010, which is a minor curiosity, if even that, i.e. a triviality. This is about the sources referenced in this discussion. As to the rest, I've reviewed them too, and I join ImaginesTigers' argument. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a fansite would need significant independent coverage to warrant a standalone article, and this subject does not meet that standard. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge to Fallout (series). I'm not entirely persuaded by the sources cited by Haleth: they refer mostly to this wiki's predecessors. With what scant coverage we have, mentioning this topic in the context of its game series makes more sense to me. Sandstein 07:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per ImaginesTigers. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fallout_Wiki&oldid=1137842409"