Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Mutant
- 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 redirect to
]Super Mutant
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Recent GAN, I declined it due to a lack of strong sourcing, with most of it being trivial mentions and sources not really discussing Super Mutants as a species. I've done a BEFORE and found very little beyond what's here, and after discussing it with the nominator, I've elected to send this to AfD to determine a consensus. Due to a lack of familiarity with Fallout, I'm not really sure as to a good AtD, but in any case, I don't believe this article currently meets Wikipedia's notability guideline. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment forgot to do this in my nomination, but pinging @Haleth due to their large contributions to the article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Delete- not notable independently of the Fallout series. Flounder fillet (talk) 23:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- C'mon, why would you delete it entirely. There's other WP:ATD option. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 23:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)]
- Merge into Fallout_(series). Multiple editors have suggested redirecting there, but the topic is not covered by that article. Flounder fillet (talk) 06:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Not to mention "not notable (qualifier)" demonstrates a poor understanding of notability. Jclemens (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- C'mon, why would you delete it entirely. There's other
- Keep References 2, 6, and 36 are sigcov independent RSes. Even if the notability was borderline here--and I argue that it's fine--this is a really well written fictional element article: exactly what we want to encourage people to write. The fact that it's been dragged to AfD is unfortunate and probably demoralizing. Jclemens (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reference 2 is CBR, which does not factor into notability. Reference 6 is a listicle discussing one specific Super Mutant, not the species as a whole. Reference 36 does not actually offer any commentary, and instead is just coverage of one guy attempting to rationalize a retcon on Twitter. Normally I'd accept any one of these things in an article as support, or in 36's case, if there was commentary alongside it, but there's no real backbone or meat to the article beyond the one scholar source, which in and of itself barely discusses the Super Mutants. I agree that the writing quality overall is excellent, but the sourcing itself is rather bare and not meeting notability for a fictional element independently from its source material. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- None of those source assessments are correct. CBR is RS for fictional topics. Reference 6 is all about a specific super mutant, so discusses the topic of super mutants (e.g. comparing memory of one super mutant to the species as a whole) in depth, and 36 is RS coverage of a twitter discussion--this happens all the time. Mind you, I skimmed the list and searched five that looked promising before settling on these three, so there's probably plenty more adequate coverage there. Jclemens (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- According to WP:VALNET: "In general, these sites should not be used to demonstrate notability outside of periods they were considered reliable or prior to being purchased by Valnet, due to concerns over undue weight and content farming." Personally, I feel the assessment is a bit harsh, but I do recognize that if we're going strictly off of policy, CBR is a source that, while adequate, does not provide weight in this discussion towards notability. As for Ref 6, while TheGamer is reliable, it is one of their pure listicle articles, and only focuses on one individual. Lily is a very separate individual from the concept of Super Mutants as a whole, and thus the source acts as coverage discussing Lily, not Super Mutants. I will also note that this source is practically all plot summary about Lily; there's very little commentary, if at all. I can see the argument for the Eurogamer source, but even then the commentary is less so about the Mutants and more about the retcons involving them. There's little actual commentary on their character here, and thus does not contribute much to actual discussion of them. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)]
- According to
- None of those source assessments are correct. CBR is RS for fictional topics. Reference 6 is all about a specific super mutant, so discusses the topic of super mutants (e.g. comparing memory of one super mutant to the species as a whole) in depth, and 36 is RS coverage of a twitter discussion--this happens all the time. Mind you, I skimmed the list and searched five that looked promising before settling on these three, so there's probably plenty more adequate coverage there. Jclemens (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reference 2 is CBR, which does not factor into notability. Reference 6 is a listicle discussing one specific Super Mutant, not the species as a whole. Reference 36 does not actually offer any commentary, and instead is just coverage of one guy attempting to rationalize a retcon on Twitter. Normally I'd accept any one of these things in an article as support, or in 36's case, if there was commentary alongside it, but there's no real backbone or meat to the article beyond the one scholar source, which in and of itself barely discusses the Super Mutants. I agree that the writing quality overall is excellent, but the sourcing itself is rather bare and not meeting notability for a fictional element independently from its source material. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Fallout (series)#Post-War conditions or similar. I think Pokelego's analysis is fair; if better sources come up at any point, please ping me. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Fallout (series)#Post-War conditions per nomination. There aren't a lot of RSes here, and none of these sources suggest independent notability for this. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Fallout (series) with no prejudice towards recreation if sufficient SIGCOV is found. This is a topic that could be notable at some point, sources may even exist, but right now there is a serious lack of significant coverage demonstrated. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - Fallout (series)#Post-War conditions doesn't even mention them. It definitely should, but it would be what, a few sentences? Merge is an option, but a new article about the world of the series should be created for that. While there was no Super Mutants in TV series, yet, I think it's just a matter of time. Interesting how articles which notability *rises* are so often nominated. Mithoron (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - Bit surprised to hear that they don't show up in the TV series, but I don't think that saying that they certainly will in the future really gives any weight to keeping this article as a stand-alone now. It will probably be quite a bit of time before that second season is released, and guessing that they probably will be introduced and probably will have coverage then is more or less a WP:CRYSTAL statement. As Zxcvbnm pointed out, if and when more coverage becomes available, there is no prejudice against splitting it back out as an independent article then. Rorshacma (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)]
- Comment - Bit surprised to hear that they don't show up in the TV series, but I don't think that saying that they certainly will in the future really gives any weight to keeping this article as a stand-alone now. It will probably be quite a bit of time before that second season is released, and guessing that they probably will be introduced and probably will have coverage then is more or less a
- Merge to Fallout (series)#Post-War conditions - I agree with the above arguments for why the subject currently does not meet the threshold to sustain an independent article, but as Flounder fillet pointed out above, it is not actually covered at the proposed section of the Fallout article, and is barely mentioned throughout that article as a whole. So, there should be some Merging going on, not just a Redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Fallout (series) or subsection thereof. Star Mississippi 17:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Merge/Redirect per Rorshacma. There isn't enough WP:SIGCOV to support a separate article, but it can be summarized and merged at the series article. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)]
- Redirect to Fallout series#Post-War conditions per all the above who said the same thing. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)]
- Keep - The fact that Fallout series#Vaults. I think if this article is kept there is still going to be necessary additions to Fallout (series). SCSQ3 (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)]
- I don't quite see your argument here. We shouldn't merge this because there isn't info there? That's what a merge is for. In any case, in-series importance does not dictate the existence of a separate article. If it did, we'd have articles on a lot of subjects who have been determined to be non-notable at this point in time, such as Diddy Kong. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)]
- I don't quite see your argument here. We shouldn't merge this because there isn't info there? That's what a merge is for. In any case, in-series importance does not dictate the existence of a separate article. If it did, we'd have articles on a lot of subjects who have been determined to be non-notable at this point in time, such as
- 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.