Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Federal Disaster Response Agency

Federal Disaster Response Agency

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

Federal Disaster Response Agency (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)

Subject is a fictional government agency in a video game franchise and does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Article reads a bit like fancruft, written almost entirely in-universe—very little real-world perspective, more suitable for a fan wiki—and the sourcing is fairly weak, largely Valnet and other unreliable sources (Looper, SVG) that describe the agency rather than say anything of interest about it. Subject is already sufficiently detailed at the relevant game/TV articles. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 09:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Easily passes WP:GNG. Significant coverage in 2025: [1] [2] [3]. Significant coverage in 2023: [4] [5] [6]. Significant coverage in 2020: [7] [8]. Multiple significant mentions in books which were published in 2022 and 2024: [9] [10]. There are tons of other sources. Just because this article reads bad is not a valid reason for deletion as it can be easily fixed by copyediting instead of deleting it. The argument that its "already sufficiently detailed at the relevant game/TV articles" is also invalid, as it can be used to delete any article on Wikipedia. For example, we can also delete Parkland high school shooting because its already sufficiently detailed by news reports. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quantity of sources does not confer notability. Most sources linked here are from Valnet which is a known content farm and not helpful for establishing notability. The mentions of FEDRA in a few academic books also don't seem significant enough to warrant a separate article. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 20:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not all sources from Valnet are unreliable. For example, The Gamer and Screen Rant are considered "situational". Also, there is like dozen other sources present in this article which are not owned by Valnet, but you guys ignore them for some reason. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 10:15, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not independently notable from the series, most coverage is trivial or from junk VALNET sources. Sergecross73 msg me 11:40, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, of course its not notable in real world, it's a fictional organization. There is an entire category on Wikipedia that lists all fictional organizations from various comics and movies. What did you mean when you said that the coverage is "trivial or from junk Valnet sources"? There is 2 dozen sources which explained this organization in great detail from 2020 to 2025. How is this coverage trivial? Also, the majority of Valnet sources are considered "situational", not "unreliable", meaning that they are allowed to be used in articles depending on the topic. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I recommend doing a bit more research into our notability requirements, as your response would indicate you're not very well versed on it yet. I'm not saying "delete it because it fictional". That would be silly. I'm saying it doesn't have any notability independent of the Last of Us franchise. If all of its coverage is in the context of the series, then its coverage should mirror that in Wikipedia - it should only be covered in the series article.
    This entry was written like it was written for a fan wikia. Its all in-universe summary content. That's not how Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written. This sort of stuff belongs on fansites who dwell over fictional details. Encyclopedias are supposed to be out-of-universe, focusing on things like its creation, reception, impact, etc. This is all just regurgitated story points as is.
    Please read WP:VALNET for the community's general thoughts on those sorts of websites. They're low quality and often aren't seen as good indicators of notability. I recommend you study up on WP:RSP and WP:VG/S and come up with your WP:THREE if you wish to be persuasive. If all you've got is some ScreenRant churnalism and some obscure blogs, as you've presented above, you've got an uphill battle ahead of you. Sergecross73 msg me 13:21, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. I just added a real-life history of FEDRA and 4 new sources which are not owned by Valnet. Would this be enough? WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, not even close. Sergecross73 msg me 16:20, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you explain why? WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Re-read my prior comments. You didn't address or answer virtually any of my points. Sergecross73 msg me 16:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge This is not a Fandom site. Seacactus 13 (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What does Fandom have to do with this article? WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Its the same thing I was explaining to you above; you wrote this article in an entirely in-universe style, almost entirely regurgitating fictional story points. That's what Fandom/fan wikia sites do. Sergecross73 msg me 16:54, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My recent edit changed this. It separated the fictional history from a real one. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You tacked on a couple of new sentences recently. That doesn't change the fact that 95% of the article remains in-universe still. Like the entirety of the "Lore" section for example. Sergecross73 msg me 17:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, this section is called "Lore" for a reason. It describes the story of FEDRA in the franchise. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable fictional organization that has no significance outside of its role in the plot of the "The Last of Us" franchise, whose various articles already adequately cover it. I would not be strictly opposed to redirecting this somewhere, but the fact that the majority of the search results for "Federal Disaster Response Agency" are not about the fictional organization, but various real-life groups that are referred to as federal disaster response agencies makes me feel that most people searching for this term might not be looking for information on a fictional entity. Rorshacma (talk) 01:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the more common search term would be FEDRA, for which we now have a disambiguation page courtesy of WhoIsCentreLeft. That seems sufficient to me. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 01:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This was actually the same reason I chose delete over redirect. Sergecross73 msg me 02:10, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, I read WP:GNG, it doesn't say anything about subjects being required to have significance outside of franchises to be notable. I think you are using made up reasons to delete this article. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 10:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You're pretty new to the website. What's more likely? That you don't understand the notability standards yet? Or that seven unrelated editors are coming together to delete your article for "made up reasons"? And to be clear, even if you don't understand things like common WP:MERGEREASONs yet, you haven't even convinced anyone of meeting the GNG alone yet with the awful slate of sources you've provided. Sergecross73 msg me 16:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, WhoIsCentreLeft is correct in that this isn't so much a WP:GNG concern as a WP:NOTPLOT / WP:WAF concern. It's permissible to have articles about specific fictional elements, but there should be discussion about the "development, design, reception, significance, and influence" of that specific fictional element. In the case of FEDRA, the sources, and thus the article by reflection, discuss it in a "in-universe" style, because it's not notable independently of The Last of Us. ~ A412 talk! 17:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I know, I've said all of that already. My point was that, so far, no single editor has even conceded that the GNG is even met though. Don't get me wrong, my core stance is that it doesn't have notability independent of the Last of Us too. I'm just saying his core argument about the GNG isn't exactly a homerun either. It's been a few days now, and he's both refused to present his WP:THREE, nor has anyone been noticeably persuaded by the sources presented so far, which is largely Valnet slop and obscure blogs. No editor thus far has agreed with their assertion that the core GNG is met. Sergecross73 msg me 18:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Idk. Seven people can be wrong. This article has 29 sources dating from 2020, 2021, 2023, 2024 and 2025. You havent explained why this article is not notable and why these sources dont count for notability. All you did was complain about a handfull of sources owned by Valnet, even though most of them are not unreliable and are allowed to be used in non-controversial articles. You and other users also said that FEDRA doesn't have notability independent from The Last of Us franchise, a deletion reason which does not seem to exist in the guidelines. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's just WP:REFBOMBING. What's your WP:THREE best sources you feel make it meet the GNG? What three are high quality sources that discuss the subject itself in significant detail? Sergecross73 msg me 18:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect per all. Wikipedia doesn't write articles that are mainly summaries of plot details. Wikipedia writes articles about fiction based on its real-world reception and impact. Only some fictional topics will have received the level of WP:SIGCOV to meet this standard, which is why we don't have an article about every proper noun invented in a work of fiction. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per my comment above. The relevant guideline is WP:NOTPLOT. ~ A412 talk! 19:00, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Federal_Disaster_Response_Agency&oldid=1290266814"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Federal Disaster Response Agency, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.