Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Equestria

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. Mainly because it's not clear whether some of the later delete !voters have factored in Jclemens's argument, which is a strong keep point. There is some discussion about a merge and a move to a different title, which I shall direct to the talk page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Equestria[edit]

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

Not independently notable, WP:OR, effectively unsourced. Redirected but got reverted (twice), propose redirect to article on the show. Kleuske (talk) 00:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will find a few pieces of non-original research and add it to the article as soon as possible. User:Navarre0107 1:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: Two new sources have been added that contain no original research, one is a book written by the show writers which help cite a talking point in the article, and the other is a mathematical statistics study on the population of Equestria and one of its major towns. Unless I missed one of the points, this should disqualify the page for deletion. user:Navarre0107 1:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC) (edited 2:33, 28 August 2017)
WP:OR means no original research.--Eflyjason (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, that was a typo, I didn't notice, I meant to say that I added sources that contain no original sources, I have edited my previous comment user:navarre0107 2:32 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: I'm a new user, but when I looked over the rules, it seemed to be in accordance (at least the edited one is). And I for one support a new article on the 'Kingdom of Equestria'. That is, if it cited correctly. User:RainbowIsBestPony 5:38 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@SubZeroSilver, Pure conSouls, and NightShadow23: any input?--Eflyjason (talk) 05:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Eflyjason (talk) 05:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Two of the sources are fan sites and analyses. The others aren't third-party. User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 06:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Only one of the sources are fan-created at this point, and I am currently looking for a suitable replacement for that reference. Navarre0107 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ISBN 978-1476662091, Ponyville Confidential is published by a reputable house, contains extensive discussion on this and other elements of MLP. Jclemens (talk) 06:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also mentioned in online news sites [1], [2], [3], [4]. Wow, after digging through all the Hasboro merch and press releases, and blurbs about the upcoming movie, there really is quite a lot of RS commentary on MLP. Jclemens (talk) 06:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll further note that even if this is judged to be insufficient to demonstrate standalone notability, there certainly seems to be enough for a section in My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic, and a merge to that location would be more policy-based (per WP:ATD-M) than outright deletion. Jclemens (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: No notability, looks trivial (at least for me), very few refs and even that are of fan-sites, not of third parties, In my opinion it should be redirected to MLP: FIM. Pure conSouls (talk) 09:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Only one of the references is now a fan analysis, I'm currently searching to find non-fan analysis to replace it. Navarre0107 (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2017
@NightShadow23:, any change of opinion with the many new added references and expanded article?-RainbowIsBestPony (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect: While Jclemens is right that is has been mentioned in other sources, those are only mentions and do not focus on the kingdom itself, but rarther on the Show itself and therefore mention the kindom as part of it. Therefor this generates no notability for this article. Gial Ackbar (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about making a "Settings" section in the My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic article then adding the proper information of this page to that one? - Pure conSouls (talk) 12:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree: Fim article do lack a section for the world settings. --Eflyjason (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No objections, here. Kleuske (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to note that we'll have to find a way to condense the information properly, but I'm sure that wouldn't be too hardNavarre0107 (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to qualify the above with the firm expectation it will "neutrally summarize sources", refrain from original research and use reliable sources. Kleuske (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I have previously mentioned, the current article has been edited as so that there are no longer original research, and all sources are reliable.--Navarre0107 (talk) , 00:46 30 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.85.201.45 (talk)
Wikia, which is cited four times, is user generated content and hence not a reliable source, much of the article is still unsourced. I maintain the article is largely WP:OR and/or badly sourced. Simply stating it's not, does not suffice. Kleuske (talk) 11:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikia, is not directly sourced, it is used for the transcripts of episodes, which is what the citation is for, the episodes. Is you would like, I'll attempt to find transcripts of the episodes on a different site, but either way, this does not change the fact, that the episodes are reliable sources about Equestria, while, understandably, Wikia is not.--Navarre0107 (talk) , 14:36 30 August 2017 (UTC)
As of two minutes ago, Wikia is no longer used as the link for the transcripts of the episode, so according to your definition of credible source, the page is fine.--Navarre0107 (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:Though I am new with Wikipedia, I must agree with Navarre0107, you're argument over there being fan-created content is no longer really in effect, and my guess is, since Wikipedia has a citation template for shows of both fiction and non-fiction, I'm sure you should be able to use the shows themselves as citations, which they have--FLVSstudent417 (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've also added three new citations from third-party news sites, and one extra book citation, in addition to the episodes themselves still being used as a citiation.--Navarre0107 (talk) 13:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Still non of them have the kingdom as a main topic, but the show itself, with the Kingdom as part of it. This just supports that it should be the same here: The Kingdom should be descirbed as Part of the main artile about the show. Gial Ackbar (talk) 15:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Art of Equestria book, is largely about the development of the Kingdom and settings of the show themselves, so that argument isn't completely valid.--RainbowIsBestPony (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And the Hearth's Warming Eve episode citation are specifically on the founding of the Kingdom.--FLVSstudent417 (talk) 18:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I must agree FLVSstudent417 and RainbowIsBestPony, some of these sources are indeed specifically about the kingdom. --Navarre0107 (talk) 21:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In its current version, I see no issues, other than it could use some expanding, but honesty, what Wikipedia page cant use some expanding. It has no original research, no fan-based sources, citations from books, episodes, and third-party news sites. And it does have plenty of notability. I still say that it is well and deserves a chance to grow as a full, independent article. --RainbowIsBestPony (talk) 05:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as though no one has validly debated against the latest argument to keep the article, is it possibly safe to assume that the consensus is to keep the article? -Navarre0107 (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given the summa summarum of the above discussions, I'd say: no, it isn't safe to assume that. Kleuske (talk) 12:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think Navarre0107, RainbowIsBestPony and FLVSstudent417 doing good job on the article. Maybe add more refs and specific information on the cities as well, like on Ponyville, Crystal Empire, Cloudsdale, etc. I don't want this article to be deleted as well. But if you guys don't work on it fast enough, I'm afraid that it will be deleted. Pure conSouls (talk) 13:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FLVSstudent417 and I have both added additional refs, and I'm working on finding some more now-RainbowIsBestPony (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As am I :)-Navarre0107 (talk) 17:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested reading: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. Still need to work on "writing from real world perspective" in my opinion. But much better than before! :) --Eflyjason (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 18:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As you suggested, Pure conSouls, RainbowIsBestPony, FLVSstudent417, and myself, have all added references, and are currently working on adding more specific information. And, other than some perspective issues, as Eflyjason mentioned, I think the article is fully worth keeping.-Navarre0107 (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Much better than before. Problems related to WP:OR and unsourced are mainly solved. Only problem left is the in-universe style which I believe can be fixed.--Eflyjason (talk) 08:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, some hints about writing style can be taken from Islandia (novel), Wonderland (fictional country), McDonaldland and others in Category:Fictional countries. :) --Eflyjason (talk) 08:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I agree with Eflyjason, its way better now and have many sources too. There is no issues besides the style of writing (which can be fixed easily). Definitely this article should remain. Good job, fellow ponies! 😊 Pure conSouls (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Navarre0107, FLVSstudent417, RainbowIsBestPony, and Eflyjason: I think it will be nice to include some information about the Everfree Forest in the article too. 😊 Pure conSouls (talk) 07:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Navarre0107 and I have both added to a Everfree Forest section of the article :) --RainbowIsBestPony (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add that the notablity of this article may be higher after the release of My Little Pony: The Movie. So keep working! 😊 --Eflyjason (talk) 09:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have two options:

  1. Keep the article, but move it to Equestria per WP:COMMONNAME
  2. Delete the article, and redirect both Equestria and Kingdom of Equestria to My Little Pony (2010 toyline). Remember that MLP is from toy maker Hasbro, and Equestria is also a prevallent location in other media within the 2010 relaunch (a.k.a. G4), so My Little Pony (2010 toyline) has a priority.

JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 05:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JSH-alive:, excuse me, Equestria already redirects to the article, and there is no valid reason to delete the article. By your explanation, there would be no fictional country entries at all, and yet, theres an entire category of them. Please explain your reasoning, since we have all basically agreed to keep the article as is.- RainbowIsBestPony (talk) 13:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@RainbowIsBestPony: Beware making points with Wikipedia:Other stuff exists and WP:OTHERSTUFF. (This usage is ok here, just a friendly reminder 😉) --Eflyjason (talk) 12:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@JSH-alive:, also, nothing in the rules of Wikipedia, state that any page should have priority over another--Navarre0107 (talk) 13:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@JSH-alive:, and even if different pages were given priority, the toy line is based on the show, not the other way around. Even it was at first. And, respectively, JSH-alive, looking at your numerous flagged and questionable edits, I doubt you have the right to be telling more expierenced editors (on the topic of My Little Pony, at least) what to do - RainbowIsBestPony (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@RainbowIsBestPony: Friendly reminder: WP:ABP --Eflyjason (talk) 13:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, I'm just not a big fan of ultimatums, especially when they aren't completely warranted. I'm sorry if my argument got out of hand, that is completely my fault. It's just saying that's what we are required to do, when nothing particularly requires us to do it bugs me. I'm sorry. -RainbowIsBestPony (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would support keeping and moving to Equestria per WP:COMMONNAME --Eflyjason (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Equestria already redirects to the page, do you mean renaming the page to just Equestria?--Navarre0107 (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Navarre0107: Yes. That would be a more common name 😊 --Eflyjason (talk) 09:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Eflyjason: But Equestria already redirects to this page, it seems redundant to completely recreate the article, just to change its name. - Navarre0107 (talk) 12:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Navarre0107: Moving does NOT mean cut-and-paste move, but rather move the whole page with history by requesting move, and make "Kingdom of Equestria" redirect back to "Equestria". So there is no need for recreating the article. And read WP:COMMONNAME too, which states "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." But anyway, we shouldn't discuss about moving here in deletion request. If nesseary and the article is kept, I will request move after this discussion is over, and we can discuss it there. :) --Eflyjason (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Eflyjason:, thanks for the clarification, it was just confusing me a little, of course we can do that. And it looks like, by all accounts, the page will be kept, so no problem there. :) --Navarre0107 (talk) 14:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should keep the article and its current name, I definitely agree with what, RainbowIsBestPony and Navarre0107 said. Even "Equestria" redirects to this page. I don't think its must to change its name to simply Equestria. 😕 Pure conSouls (talk) 18:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Pure conSouls, Navarre0107, and RainbowIsBestPony, because Equestria redirects to the page, I doubt we would need to change the name.--FLVSstudent417 (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With the recent approvals of keeping from the majority of the users involved within this deletion article, and the relative inactivity within the last twenty-four hours, is it now safe to assume that we have come to consensus to keep the article? Of course, we need to resolve the issue over renaming the article to simply, Equestria, but that's really more a topic for the talk page than a articles of deletion page.--Navarre0107 (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sidenote: I just created a new section of the Equestria talk page specifically for the debate over renaming the article.--Navarre0107 (talk) 14:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it's better to wait until the normal end date and let admin decide. No need to rush. :) --Eflyjason (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. There's no in-universe evidence that the land's full name is the "Kingdom of Equestria", and not sure if we can call it a kingdom at all, since that fictional land is not ruled by a king. So, should the article be kept, it must simply be renamed Equestria. But Equestria already redirects to... Don't worry. You can go to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests for assistance.
  2. In the age of the audiovisual media being most influential forces, some of you may want to think the current (a.k.a. "G4") MLP toys are by-product of FIM TV series. But technically, it's the other way round. You know Hasbro is a toy maker. The TV shows like this (as well as animated shorts, animated video films and, sometimes, theatrical feature-length films) is one of marketing strategies used by major toy companies these days. FIM is a part of the 2010 relaunch of MLP, and even the toy descriptions are set in the fictional universe of Equestria. It's commissioned by Hasbro (thorugh Hasbro Studios) after all. So, if the article is going to be deleted, both Equestria and Kingdom of Equestria must be redirected to My Little Pony (2010 toyline), NOT My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic. Equestria is also the main location of the upcoming theatrical film.
JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 16:37, 12 September 2017 (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/Kingdom_of_Equestria&oldid=1069519472"