Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power Armor (Fallout)

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.

Power Armor (Fallout) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination

)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Power armor does meet a narrow reading of GNG. As in, multiple articles specifically talk about it, or an aspect of it. But, whether it needs it’s own article without the context of a wider topic is the real question. Again, while there may be GNG coverage here, we are not required to create an article like this, and it could be probably better if it is merged in the series article, or a universe of Fallout article. I think this is almost or maybe only belongs to the fandom (Not gonna argue someone here, especially with a turtle internet speed rn).

• Note: This discussion has been included in the
  🔔) 14:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Creator keep Article is clearly a
  WP:WEDONTNEEDIT situation. There are articles solely on power armor from VG247, Kotaku, and pages about in the independent published book Fallout: A Tale of Mutation. Power Armor is an iconic item in video gaming and The Digital Role-Playing Game and Technical Communication book explains how Power Armor is one of the most recognizable and highest branding value things in Bethesda's entire catalog. There's a solid argument for it being one of the most well-known armored suits in games besides Master Chief and Samus Aran. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • A lot of the sources are not what I would consider significant coverage. For example, this source is to do with the flaws of the Fallout Creation Club and monetizing mods. This source is to do with Fallout 76 issues; the helmet is not the significant part of the story, the mold is. The reception section is largely supported by only two sources. and there's no creation info about the Power Suit included. I'm not opposed to the concept of the article if work is done to show notability, but as it is, the article doesn't demonstrate it. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Zxcvbnm I am still thinking. Are those the best sources? Can you link the pages from relevant book (to GBooks or IA)? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - per
  Powered exoskeleton#Fictional depictions existing, I'm having a hard time understanding why this was split out into its own stub article. There's also very little substance in the reception section. It's been tagged for cleanup since 2020, and for good reason, it's a bloated collection of long quotes and random musings about them of little consequence. Sergecross73 msg me 14:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  You are describing

  WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems. Theoretically it could be an article that stands on its own, it's already fully notable, so that's what ultimately matters. If articles were never made because they need to be above a certain size, it creates a catch-22 (logic) where articles are never improved because they are never created in the first place. There needs to be a basis there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I'm not convinced of that. It's been three years and there's been zero improvement. There's virtually nothing of substance there currently, and two separate areas where what little substance can be discussed now. Merge it now, and draft up something later and hold a separate discussion about splitting back off if/when someone ever decides to write a legit article. This ain't it. Sergecross73 msg me 14:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. I don't know why Greenish Pickle suggested it fulfilled GNG, it's supported exclusively by two sources, and when you cut down the text attributed to it, the Reception section is quite small. Otherwise, a lot of sources aren't actually to do with the Power Armor, but with the Power Armor as part of a greater subject. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 14:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, for effect, I trimmed the Reception down to what I believe is actually reception, and cutting out unnecessary quotes and details: "Patricia Hernandez of
    VG247 was more critical of its wider availability in Fallout 4, feeling similar distaste, as he felt it should be reserved for players who work hard and earn it. He was also critical of its abundant use by enemies." If it is, indeed, the third-most-well-known power armor in gaming, it's not shown in the sources utilized. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    I'd say the visceral reaction of the critics as to its use actually demonstrates how well known it is. It's the equivalent of, say, a Halo game where you can play as a normal soldier, but are granted Master Chief's SPARTAN armor. There was something of a backlash despite the game wanting to show off the armor as a more major mechanic.

    But I can agree the article is underdeveloped. I'll try to improve it to pass the

    WP:HEY standard, since people have mentioned that "it being a legit article" would change their opinion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    No offense, but it's been more then 2 years after you first created this article, and your attempt to invoke

    WP:HEY will likely not sway the majority of participants of this discussion, including myself (and I am sympathetic towards salvaging problematic articles), to go for a keep position. I am not seeing much solid sourcing (development or reception) that would enable us to build a proper standalone article at this time. Haleth (talk) 10:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

    ]

• Merge What's here just doesn't support the article being separate. Most of the commentary is about the item as a gameplay element and even then not independently separate from the particular games. I'd love to see more Fallout spinout articles on wikipedia that matter, but this doesn't have legs to stand on.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Merge target should be Fallout (series)#Gameplay, which is fairely underdeveloped. Relevant gameplay concepts should be put there instead of being spun off into a separate article. OceanHok (talk) 12:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Fullfills the minimum requirements of
  WP:GNG in my view, although improvements would of course be welcome. Daranios (talk) 15:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge into
  Powered exoskeleton article. I personally don't believe that this article should be AfD'd, but some editors believe that a merge discussion would not have achieved an expedient outcome if it's an advertised merge discussion with no deadline. Haleth (talk) 10:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• @Cukie Gherkin: @Sergecross73: @Haleth: @Kung Fu Man: @OceanHok: Courtesy ping now that the article has undergone expansion. I feel it may convince people who think the article was too short or pointless. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment For what it's worth, I have added a section and some primary sources discussing the design rationale of the Power Armor itself. I think this article still needs a lot of work, but now there are some sources that actually describe its specific context rather than its ingame appearance. There is good potential that the article's notability is founded on its cultural recognition as a central motif for the series of Fallout games, in the same manner as Pip-Boy. But the objections that most of these sources come from trivial or incidental things people have done with the Power Armor is also a concern too. Hope this helps. Vrxces (talk) 06:39, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Can a material contributor to an article still express a view here without apprehended bias? If so, it's a Keep from me. Vrxces (talk) 07:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Rules say you have to disclose any "vested interest" but can still participate and express your views. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment While I'm still formulating a proper response to the above ping, I will note I removed the Creation Club reference, as that matter was about whether or not Bethesda could released mini-dlc/"paid mods" of items that had also been previously released as mods in other forms for Fallout 4 by other authors, which involved the Hellfire Power Armor and Chinese Stealth Suit. The matter itself was not about power armor or even the Hellfire outright. The fact it involved a power armor was coincidence.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure I'd entirely agree. The title is "Fallout 4’s Creation Club armor has free counterparts — and fans prefer them". The fact that the items being debated are Power Armors is relevant since Bethesda used them as a focus of their paid Creation Club efforts. It's not a coincidence that Bethesda featured them since Power Armors are highly sought after items due to their in-universe significance, making it more likely for players to buy them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm inclined to agree with KFM, by virtue of the fact that the Power Armor is just an example of the problem with the Creation Club. Perhaps the most notable one, but the Power Armor wasn't the biggest problem with the Creation Club. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "It's not a coincidence that Bethesda featured them since Power Armors are highly sought after items due to their in-universe significance"--Speaking frankly Zx, this is original research...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This additional Eurogamer feature more outright states that "Fallout 4's Chinese Stealth Armour mod was at the centre of the controversy around Creation Club". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, that was established in my main comment. The Stealth Suit also isn't power armor in either incarnation.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Not sure it really moves the needle for me either way. Sergecross73 msg me 18:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The updated article doesn't make me want to change my position to keep right away, but some of the sourcing have merit. Even the nominator conceded that it meets the bare minimum of WP:GNG, so some of us may agree that it is an issue of content as opposed to notability. Haleth (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And that's about where I'm at. One could probably find a few Kotaku sources about the red shoes

  Sonic wears too, but that still doesn't mean it makes sense for me to spin it out to its own dedicated article. There's just little here, and multiple other places it could be covered. Sergecross73 msg me 15:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I'm not sure that's a fair comparison, as Sonic's shoes are literally only worn by Sonic. Power armor is an item that is used across the ingame universe by both the player and NPCs alike, comprises an entire form of gameplay interaction when you put it on (at least in Fallout 4), and has story relevance as more than just "the shoes this character wears". Sonic's shoes can mostly not be separated from Sonic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You're splitting hairs on a hypothetical - I don't think we need splits for

  wikias, not Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 18:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]