Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2012 October 29
2012 October 31 >

30 October 2012

  • Rainbow Dash – Defaulting to endorse given that the nominator managed to get himself indeffed. Given the views expressed about giving this a chance, I'm willing to userfy this for any good faith user to try and get it up to scratch. – Spartaz Humbug! 10:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Rainbow Dash ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Character is more than notable enough for an article. Has a large fan base, many appearances and volumes of coverage on other sites. I have a new version of the article in my userspace that I intend to use ( User:ResonX/Rainbow Dash). ResonX ( talk) 05:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply

  • I'm struggling here. My first reaction was "well, you're taken the effort to write the article - at least we should allow recreation and a fresh afd" - but I'm not very sure about your sourcing. The bulk of the article has no inline sourcing, and the rest seems to be sourced from a forum and one blog. Is that enough? Hm.-- Scott Mac 19:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Hmm. My inclination is that it is not enough. The original AFD was strongly leaning toward merge, primarily because the only sourcing for notability as a separate character was blogs and fansites. Now we have a proposed new version that is sourced to... blogs and fansites. I'm sorry, but I don't see anything on the new article that particularly shows separate notability for the specific character. So my !vote could be summed up as Endorse status quo.- TexasAndroid ( talk) 21:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • And what's wrong with blogs and fansites? They should be acceptable as sources provided that they're popular enough, and they are clear demonstrations of notability. ResonX ( talk) 21:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC) Also, if you need me to cite episodes and such for most of the in–universe stuff, I can add that. ResonX ( talk) 21:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • The core issue here is Notability, as defined by Wikipedia. For a reference to help establish Notability, it generally has to meet three points. Independence, Reliability, and Non-trivial. Blogs fail the Reliability part of that. There are (very) limited circumstances where blogs can be a reference, but they generally cannot be used to establish notability. And Notability, or lack of it, specifically notability separate from the show itself, is the issue at the core of the AFD, and thus this DRV. - TexasAndroid ( talk) 21:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Browsing any site on the internet with user–generated content, you're going to run into ponies. These characters have HUGE fan bases that have written volumes about them and made enough art of them to fill museums. Rainbow Dash is the most popular of them all. There is no need for specific sources here, for a simple search will lead one to thousands upon thousands of hits for fan work about these characters. Also, "notability" as defined by Wikipedia is completely backwards and close–minded, and I've joined the site with the express purpose of having that definition changed. ResonX ( talk) 22:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Good luck with that. But until/unless it changes, we have to deal with the definition as it currently stands. And as it stands, you need non-blog articles about the character, or something similar, if you want to show she has notability separate from the show itself. - TexasAndroid ( talk) 22:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • She does. It's in the fandom. Didn't you understand what I just said? There are so many fan works about her, that combined they are all equivalent to several high–importance articles. Also, under the policy that I intend to push through, simply being storied enough would be enough to have an article. ResonX ( talk) 22:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I agree that this page should be deleted. It doesn't comply with one of Wikipedia's most important article standards: notability. I'm on TexasAndroid's side. - by Kevin12cd... Tell me how I'm doing on my Talkpage! 00:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rainbow Dash is extremely notable. More notable than 90+ percent of fictional characters with pages on this site. Look at the statistics on fan pages devoted to her. How many more will it take to be enough for you people?! ResonX ( talk) 00:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • ResonX, you need to speak more civilly. Even though other articles may drop the NOT, the only reason they have not been deleted is because they have not been discovered yet. It doesn't mean you can drop it, too. - by Kevin12cd... Tell me how I'm doing on my Talkpage! 01:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I'm sorry, but it's just that you people are really starting to vex me. There are few, if any, fictional characters today with bigger fandoms than the MLP characters. By denying them articles, you're basically saying that fan labor means NOTHING, no matter what the amount, and that only a few high–profile people that you've designated as "reliable" get to decide what matters. And obviously that's not the case. ResonX ( talk) 01:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • NOTE: I've just added a few more references to my article draft, to humor you. ResonX ( talk) 01:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • This seems to be a good faith attempt to create an article in this space, by a good faith user. If ResonX absolutely insists, then he should be allowed to put it in (without prejudice to a subsequent AfD). The material definitely would not survive AfD and I'm certain it would be deleted again in short order, because the sourcing falls so far below our standards. I think it would be better if ResonX didn't insist. But if he does, it's not really DRV's role to stand in his way.— S Marshall T/ C 08:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
In all that lot, then, you've provided one source (Behind the Voice Actors) with a couple of sentences on the subject that may meet the guidelines for supporting the topic's notability. Since the general notability guideline requires multiple sources, that's still insufficient to warrant undeleting the page. In short: "...what's wrong with blogs and fansites?" They aren't acceptable as sources here, that's what. Yunshui  雲‍ 水 08:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Permit draft to be moved to article space - The article was redirected in August 2011 as a result of the AfD. The current draft overcomes the reasons for the AfD redirect close. I think with some careful writing using available reliable sources, the topic can get past AfD. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 10:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Current draft doesn't appear to meet our inclusion guidelines as others have shown. I'm having a hard time imagining that sources aren't out there however. [1] has a reasonable mention. [2] also seems to have a little bit. I agree with S Marshall that ideally this would be fixed in user space first. But I'm okay with sending it to article space now as long as the author understands that A) as it stands it will likely be deleted and B) once deleted getting it back again is going to be harder. Hobit ( talk) 15:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Allow move to Article space - I've not changed my basic position, but I'll concede that DRV is not the right place for this discussion. Allow for movement to mainspace of the new draft, but allow/expect an almost immediate new AFD (likely filed by myself) if Reliable Sources are not added before that happens. - TexasAndroid ( talk) 16:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
And... changing back once more to Endorse. With ResonX blocked, and his "I don't care for WP rules" attitude anyway, the chances of his current userspace draft being given proper RS is looking to be slim to none. - TexasAndroid ( talk) 15:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse - keep as a redirect. Bronies cobbling together a few blogs and other non- reliable sources does not overcome the reason why this thing was deleted in 2011. Yunshui's source analysis above nailed it. Tarc ( talk) 13:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Note ResonX's account is currently blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing; any move to userspace or expectation that the page will be improved there should probably take this fact into account. Yunshui  雲‍ 水 13:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply

  • endorse - while theoretically it seems possible (and even perhaps likely) that reliable sources exist that would cover the topic in a sufficient manner to allow a creditable article, the current user space offering does not overcome the objections raised in the AfD, and I was not able to find any of those reliable sources that might exist somewhere. And this particular user being indeff blocked from even their talk page is not likely to be able to bring it up to standards anytime soon. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_October_30&oldid=1078422017"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2012 October 29
2012 October 31 >

30 October 2012

  • Rainbow Dash – Defaulting to endorse given that the nominator managed to get himself indeffed. Given the views expressed about giving this a chance, I'm willing to userfy this for any good faith user to try and get it up to scratch. – Spartaz Humbug! 10:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Rainbow Dash ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Character is more than notable enough for an article. Has a large fan base, many appearances and volumes of coverage on other sites. I have a new version of the article in my userspace that I intend to use ( User:ResonX/Rainbow Dash). ResonX ( talk) 05:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply

  • I'm struggling here. My first reaction was "well, you're taken the effort to write the article - at least we should allow recreation and a fresh afd" - but I'm not very sure about your sourcing. The bulk of the article has no inline sourcing, and the rest seems to be sourced from a forum and one blog. Is that enough? Hm.-- Scott Mac 19:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Hmm. My inclination is that it is not enough. The original AFD was strongly leaning toward merge, primarily because the only sourcing for notability as a separate character was blogs and fansites. Now we have a proposed new version that is sourced to... blogs and fansites. I'm sorry, but I don't see anything on the new article that particularly shows separate notability for the specific character. So my !vote could be summed up as Endorse status quo.- TexasAndroid ( talk) 21:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • And what's wrong with blogs and fansites? They should be acceptable as sources provided that they're popular enough, and they are clear demonstrations of notability. ResonX ( talk) 21:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC) Also, if you need me to cite episodes and such for most of the in–universe stuff, I can add that. ResonX ( talk) 21:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • The core issue here is Notability, as defined by Wikipedia. For a reference to help establish Notability, it generally has to meet three points. Independence, Reliability, and Non-trivial. Blogs fail the Reliability part of that. There are (very) limited circumstances where blogs can be a reference, but they generally cannot be used to establish notability. And Notability, or lack of it, specifically notability separate from the show itself, is the issue at the core of the AFD, and thus this DRV. - TexasAndroid ( talk) 21:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Browsing any site on the internet with user–generated content, you're going to run into ponies. These characters have HUGE fan bases that have written volumes about them and made enough art of them to fill museums. Rainbow Dash is the most popular of them all. There is no need for specific sources here, for a simple search will lead one to thousands upon thousands of hits for fan work about these characters. Also, "notability" as defined by Wikipedia is completely backwards and close–minded, and I've joined the site with the express purpose of having that definition changed. ResonX ( talk) 22:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Good luck with that. But until/unless it changes, we have to deal with the definition as it currently stands. And as it stands, you need non-blog articles about the character, or something similar, if you want to show she has notability separate from the show itself. - TexasAndroid ( talk) 22:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • She does. It's in the fandom. Didn't you understand what I just said? There are so many fan works about her, that combined they are all equivalent to several high–importance articles. Also, under the policy that I intend to push through, simply being storied enough would be enough to have an article. ResonX ( talk) 22:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I agree that this page should be deleted. It doesn't comply with one of Wikipedia's most important article standards: notability. I'm on TexasAndroid's side. - by Kevin12cd... Tell me how I'm doing on my Talkpage! 00:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rainbow Dash is extremely notable. More notable than 90+ percent of fictional characters with pages on this site. Look at the statistics on fan pages devoted to her. How many more will it take to be enough for you people?! ResonX ( talk) 00:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • ResonX, you need to speak more civilly. Even though other articles may drop the NOT, the only reason they have not been deleted is because they have not been discovered yet. It doesn't mean you can drop it, too. - by Kevin12cd... Tell me how I'm doing on my Talkpage! 01:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I'm sorry, but it's just that you people are really starting to vex me. There are few, if any, fictional characters today with bigger fandoms than the MLP characters. By denying them articles, you're basically saying that fan labor means NOTHING, no matter what the amount, and that only a few high–profile people that you've designated as "reliable" get to decide what matters. And obviously that's not the case. ResonX ( talk) 01:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • NOTE: I've just added a few more references to my article draft, to humor you. ResonX ( talk) 01:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • This seems to be a good faith attempt to create an article in this space, by a good faith user. If ResonX absolutely insists, then he should be allowed to put it in (without prejudice to a subsequent AfD). The material definitely would not survive AfD and I'm certain it would be deleted again in short order, because the sourcing falls so far below our standards. I think it would be better if ResonX didn't insist. But if he does, it's not really DRV's role to stand in his way.— S Marshall T/ C 08:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
In all that lot, then, you've provided one source (Behind the Voice Actors) with a couple of sentences on the subject that may meet the guidelines for supporting the topic's notability. Since the general notability guideline requires multiple sources, that's still insufficient to warrant undeleting the page. In short: "...what's wrong with blogs and fansites?" They aren't acceptable as sources here, that's what. Yunshui  雲‍ 水 08:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Permit draft to be moved to article space - The article was redirected in August 2011 as a result of the AfD. The current draft overcomes the reasons for the AfD redirect close. I think with some careful writing using available reliable sources, the topic can get past AfD. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 10:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Current draft doesn't appear to meet our inclusion guidelines as others have shown. I'm having a hard time imagining that sources aren't out there however. [1] has a reasonable mention. [2] also seems to have a little bit. I agree with S Marshall that ideally this would be fixed in user space first. But I'm okay with sending it to article space now as long as the author understands that A) as it stands it will likely be deleted and B) once deleted getting it back again is going to be harder. Hobit ( talk) 15:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Allow move to Article space - I've not changed my basic position, but I'll concede that DRV is not the right place for this discussion. Allow for movement to mainspace of the new draft, but allow/expect an almost immediate new AFD (likely filed by myself) if Reliable Sources are not added before that happens. - TexasAndroid ( talk) 16:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
And... changing back once more to Endorse. With ResonX blocked, and his "I don't care for WP rules" attitude anyway, the chances of his current userspace draft being given proper RS is looking to be slim to none. - TexasAndroid ( talk) 15:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse - keep as a redirect. Bronies cobbling together a few blogs and other non- reliable sources does not overcome the reason why this thing was deleted in 2011. Yunshui's source analysis above nailed it. Tarc ( talk) 13:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Note ResonX's account is currently blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing; any move to userspace or expectation that the page will be improved there should probably take this fact into account. Yunshui  雲‍ 水 13:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply

  • endorse - while theoretically it seems possible (and even perhaps likely) that reliable sources exist that would cover the topic in a sufficient manner to allow a creditable article, the current user space offering does not overcome the objections raised in the AfD, and I was not able to find any of those reliable sources that might exist somewhere. And this particular user being indeff blocked from even their talk page is not likely to be able to bring it up to standards anytime soon. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_October_30&oldid=1078422017"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE