Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mapping (fandom)

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 delete. If someone wants to redirect, go for it. Missvain (talk) 23:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mapping (fandom)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The topic here seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:OR (the article is reference solely to unreliable sources, like YouTube, fandom.com, even cites a discord server...). Few more reliable sources don't discuss the "mapping fandom", just some of its more prominent creations. This is a fascinating topic - but it needs to be properly researched and written up in reliable sources first. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why the article is requested for deletion (sources) and I do not oppose it that much anymore. What I'd like to say is, few news outlets, other companies, etc. even dare to touch the fandom. For example: SMART BANANA, a notorious example (mentioned in the article) published a mapping video with a couple of things that the mapping fandom views badly, and SMART BANANA had to take their video down. So the article has a disadvantage from the start. Also, some references are just to demarcate that a mentioned thing exists. Geogranerd (talk) 09:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Geogranerd, I understand, but bottom line (for Wikipedia) are the WP:OR and WP:GNG policies. Until someone else publishes about the mapping fandom, we can't do it. (Also, that publication has to be reliable, YouTube or fandom/wikia are not). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus. Okay then. There may be too much WP:OR. I will have to agree. Geogranerd (talk) 09:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:OR. Sources almost entirely consist of Fandom and Youtube links, and as far as I can tell there is none (or extremely limited) reliable coverage of this subject. TheRealDario04 (talk) 13:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above, and as fan content. If any individual Youtuber is notable per our guidelines, they should get a page. Including a bunch of non-notable Youtubers (under 10k subscribers without any RS coverage) under the heading of a 'fandom' is not the way to get it done. And as noted, an incredible amount of OR ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 19:34, 16 November 2020 (UTCi
Delete per reasons outlined above by Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus and Dario. toweli (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons stated above.Eccekevin (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Soft redirect to Wikibooks:Mapping on YouTube Original research is allowed on Wikibooks. I suggest we create a cross-wiki redirect, and maybe move some of the content there, keeping this page's history intact so that it can be attributed to the original writers. Koopinator (talk) 10:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That might be the best solution yet. I would support this, since it both keeps mapping available on a Wikimedia Foundation site and complies with the site rules. Geogranerd (talk) 14:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Soft redirect to Wikibooks:Mapping on YouTube per reasons indicated above by Koopinator. Geogranerd (talk) 14:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is a novel relist for me, but given that a fairly unusual resolution was proposed (and received some support), I'm going to relist it to see if there is further consideration for it. There is currently fully clear consensus that it wouldn't remain on Wikipedia
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 13:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wikibooks:Mapping on YouTube. Recent comments have the better idea. Foxnpichu (talk) 15:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Out of project scope fancruft, not worth keeping even a redirect around for. That other projects might tolerate such low-grade content is not our concern. Sandstein 21:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am a mapper, so I'd like some of it kept somewhere, but the current article truly terrible. I'd be willing to take on the project. I'm happy with a soft redirect or userfy it. Bearian (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have no objection to userfication. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I do not agree with the soft redirect proposal, what Wikibooks hosts isn't much of our concern, but I'm fine with userification. TheRealDario04 (talk) 07:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If what Wikibooks hosts is truly not of our concern, that would really call the entire concept of a soft redirect into question. That would probably be better discussed at Wikipedia talk:Soft redirect. Currently we have over 1000 soft redirects and plenty of other forms of integration with Wikipedia's sister projects. Wikipedia:Alternatives to deletion also states that soft redirects are a valid alternative to deletion, especially if an article to be deleted is likely to be re-created. I would argue it is likely, given it's already been created once. Koopinator (talk) 11:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Except if you take a look at the list of soft redirects you yourself provided, you'll see that only 2 are to Wikibooks (not counting the templates). I am not arguing against all soft redirects, I am arguing against a soft redirect to Wikibooks. You are just trying to loophole your fancruft onto Wikipedia. TheRealDario04 (talk) 23:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  So, if you're not arguing against all soft redirects, then that means you think the Wiktionary soft redirects are okay, right? If that's the case, why is it that what Wiktionary hosts is our concern, but not Wikibooks? I'm getting the impression that you want to ignore the established alternative to deletion of soft redirecting because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. By the way, i had actually taken a look at the list of soft redirects, but i don't think a meaningful distinction can be made here between "stuff that belongs on Wiktionary" and "stuff that belongs on Wikibooks". They're both sister projects of Wikipedia, which although different in scope still nonetheless have a degree of integration with this site. Koopinator (talk) 07:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikitionary is a dictionary, literally purposed for concise definitions of words, which in my opinion is perfectly fine and is the best alternative in case it doesn't have/deserve an article on Wikipedia. Wikibooks is a place for writing and posting original research, which is the opposite of what is wanted on Wikipedia. There is a reason why it's basically unused in soft redirects. Stop putting words in my mouth.TheRealDario04 (talk) 09:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is neither a dictionary, nor a publisher of original thought. Both of these are contrary to Wikipedia policy and outside the scope of the project. That's why they are on different sites. As for why there's only 2 Wikibooks redirects and 1641 Wiktionary soft redirects (not counting templates), it seems to me because of a statistics thing: Wikibooks has 3152 books, while Wiktionary has 6475108 entries. Any given Wikibooks entry has a 0.0006% (1 out of 1576) chance of having a corresponding Wikipedia soft redirect, while any given Wiktionary entry has a 0.0003% (1 out of 3945) chance of having a soft redirect. Also, i think it's worth noting that Wiktionary does in fact allow original research - "we don't have any policy on original research; sometimes original research is inevitable and necessary to help us document a rare or brand-new use that no one else has documented before". Koopinator (talk) 11:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Soft redirect to Wikibooks:Mapping on YouTube. I love weird Internet shit -- but this article is pretty bad as-is, and it doesn't seem to establish notability right now. Like Bearian above, I would greatly enjoy working on it as a draft or a userspace page. I've substed a copy of its current content at User:JPxG/Mapping for now. jp×g 08:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, happy for userfication as requested above. KylieTastic (talk) 14:57, 3 December 2020 (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.