Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rainbow Dash (3rd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 merge to List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 16:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow Dash

edit
AfDs for this article:
Rainbow Dash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nopony else has her own article, but why does Rainbow Dash have an article? I'd say merge to List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters. Jeremjay24 17:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all the other ponies. Fluttershy !xmcuvg2MH 20:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and why are we even here at AfD if the nom wants a merge and no one has contested it? Jclemens (talk) 04:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and/or Redirect. Lacks notability, aside from a few incidental references. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:26, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article, add redirect to "list of" page. On its own, this is a non-notable article. The Wood Walton paper does not confer notability on this pony. We are here, AFAIK, because user Fifelfoo reverted the redirect that had been put in place of this article; the more general subject was discussed here in the My Little Pony wikiproject, which in essence said "individual pony articles are not notable and will be redirected. Any redirections that are reverted will lead to an AfD such that the community can decide on the future of the article". --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 7-10 separate articles about several main characters from the show wouldn't hurt anyone. Ptok Bentoniczny (talk) 11:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Only if you ignore all wikipedia rules such as WP:N. Why would pony articles be immune to such regulations? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia's notaility rules are vague and subjective, morevoer, they are absolutely self-imposed, therefore they have no value and no sense at all. Because in my opinion, the main ponies from these show ARE notable, especially Rainbow Dash; she's most commonly seen in MLP memes. And to be honest, Imagine 6 articles about the main characters; merging them would mean creating an impossibly long list-article, it's better to read a normal article. And beside that, Wikipedia isn't a place with limited space, right? Ptok Bentoniczny (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC) PS: And please don't respond But WP:N! <-- they DO NOT explain themselves and they are no argument.[reply]
And where do you expect to get the sources from to verify your claims? News articles that only make a bare mention of the character's name? Fluttershy !xmcuvg2MH 14:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
where the hell AM I!? Eh... I'm pretty sure that Rainbow Dash is faaaar more notable than THIS or this. Seriously, if it's popular on the Internet and it's a character from a popular TV show (specifiaclly, one popular among some adults, not only kids) then it explains its notability by itself. There is no need to prove notability in certain types of sources. Any sources should count toward this. And seriously, it's far more notable and well-known than many other things already included in Wikipedia. And that's why I deny Wikipedia's notability policy because it leads to pure nonsense... Ptok Bentoniczny (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And such merging leads to incredibly long articles that are long lists... It's just more comfortable to read a shorter article... Seriously, where's the common sense?? Ptok Bentoniczny (talk) 21:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is some truth to the idea that there are grey areas when it comes to the notability rules. But it does not mean that the rules are completely meaningless and should be ignored. I also don't see any problem with the List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters. You can use the table of contents page to jump to which particular character you want. Also, if you have an issue with the notability of another article, then you can feel free to add a Notability tag, or even create an article for deletion vote. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 03:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just to let people know, the argument of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (that other articles exist that are similar or non-notable) and WP:HARMLESS (what harm would it do to keep it) aren't really viable arguments, nor is WP:LIKE (I like it, other people like it, so it deserves a page). Ignore all rules is good, but you still have to back that up with valid reasons as to why it's necessary to ignore the rules. I don't really have an opinion either way in this, but I thought I'd come in and say that if you want to keep the article then you have to back this up with valid reasons as to why. These same arguments were brought up with the other MLPFIM character pages and they still got redirected, so I can say from experience that you will have to make some pretty valid arguments to keep the page.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Comment. My valid reason why the older ponies were deleted and DEEMED not notable is because the only sources were in Fansites only. It's not like someone can Transcribe an entire MLP catalogue and include them, And because the Mane 6 have their own articles and not the rest, is plain stupid.--Blackgaia02 (Talk if you're Worthy) (talk) 13:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Look guys. About Rainbow Dash. she has 4'400'000 hits in google. Lots of images depicting her. Many many pony-bloggers write about the characters. You can't say it's not notable because no serious journalist hasn't written anything about her. Lots of memes were created based on Rainbow Dash. She is a controversial character because some see a feminist-lesbian type in her (what's mentioned in the article we discuss now). I say Ignore Wikipedia-style-notability-rule because it makes no sense in this case, OK? AND less valid arguments - many, many fictional characters got their articles and they ARE notable?? I believe that Rainbow Dash is more notable than some less-known Pokemon. Please don't say it's not comparable because it is comparable. Different characters from different show but one is notable and the second is not even though both are well set in the Internet. There is a lot of fanfic about Rainbow Dash. Rainbow Dash is a part of 'cupcakes' stories. There is a lot of useless things in Wikipedia SO I think those things aren't much more useless. RD definetely deserves a separate article. Wikipedia already became something like a catalogue (listing e.g. all railway stations!!) and I think a character from well-known show that is notable because of bronies culture (what is a phenomenon) should have a separate article. Oh, and you say that fansites are not enough to keep an article but... if there are fansites... a lots of them, then it is NOTABLE? Ptok Bentoniczny (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and still keep. Ptok Bentoniczny (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how many number of shitty fansites using a free website provider like Webs you can pull off the web. If it's not covered by any reliable media outlet, it's useless fodder. Fluttershy !xmcuvg2MH 22:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By fodder, I mean cannon fodder. Fluttershy !xmcuvg2MH 22:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there are a lot of shitty fansites, then it simply IS notable by the fact that those shitty fansites exist. Something that's not notable wouldn't have so many fansites (lacking of fansites doesn't exclude a possibility of something being notable ofc). Besiedes, there's even a game featuring Rainbow Dash (Rainbow Dash attack). So Rainbow Dash is both a cartoon character AND a game character. Ptok Bentoniczny (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ptok: You have your own standard for "notability", but you must understand that it is not Wikipedia's. All wikipedians, regardless of nationality, race, religion, economic status or beliefs must play by the set of agreed upon rules. It is the only way that a site like this can function. We cannot make our own rules and guidelines. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never an argument. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

– Confession0791 talk 13:42, 5 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rainbow_Dash_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1308353876"