Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derrial Book
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 to delete. I'm not going to close this as keep, because although there is no consensus to delete, there is also no consensus that the articles so listed should be kept in their present form. Whilst not deleting is equal to keep, at times a keep result can be taken to mean that an article or group of articles should be kept as is, and I am using my discretion to note that there is no consensus within this debate on which to base such an opinion. The argument with most merit in this debate has been that of merging. I would suggest that interested parties work together to achieve a consensus on the best way to present that information best fitting with our purpose that is contained within these articles, as no consensus to delete it has formed as yet. See WP:MERGE for more details. Hiding T 15:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Derrial Book
I am also nominating the following articles for the same reasons:
Non notable characters from a tv series that was cancelled after one season and a film which was a box office bomb. There are no independant secondary sources and the bulk of the articles is original research and probable fancruft. WP:FICT states that all articles on fictional topics should be contain real world information and WP:WAF says that articles should be based around this information. There is no real world information that exists for any of these characters (that is given in the article or I can find on the internet). -- Guest9999 (talk) 17:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep-leaving aside the reference to the film as a box office bomb, which is POV, it can be factually stated that both film and television series were critical successes. Althought he articles could use better sources, a look at them indicates a lack of WP:OR and everything in them could be sourced to the published scripts, novelization, comics, or the non-fiction essays dealing with the series published in the two volumes Finding Serenity and Serenity Found.-- Shsilver (talk) 17:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- Reply The movie made less money at the box office than it cost to make (about $39,000,000 compared to about $40,000,000) considering that theatres take a significant proportion of that (~40% ?) and the amount of money spent on publicity and advertising it is likely that the studio suffered a significant loss. That to me indicates that the movie "bombed" at the box office. Admittedly though it is quite a POV statement and should not detract from the major notability concerns in the article. There are no third party, reliable sources given. -- Guest9999 (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment He's unfortunately correct: none of those articles make any cited use of Finding Serenity. Can somebody please add material? I have no idea which box my copy is in.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 19:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Merge all (with trimmed plot) into Characters of Firefly until someone has found and added significant amounts of reliable third-party information to establish individual notabilty. As this show has been cancelled several years now without having these articles establish their notability, it is unlikely that somehow editors will just start working on the articles. I'm open to recreation of articles when the nom's concerns are addressed. (Just started rewatching the show on DVD.) – sgeureka t•c 17:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep & Clean or Merge without prejudice. These articles could easily be expanded and tidied to include more good/real-world information. The series, film, and characters are highly notable, as the show was actually highly successful and popular, despite what the nominator would have you believe. ---- Cheeser1 (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- I do not know how you can call a show that was cancelled after 1 season "highly successful"? [[Guest9999 (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)]]
-
- Yeah, well maybe you should read up on the show a little bit. We have a whole article about it. The fact that you don't like it or that you don't consider it successful is totally irrelevant. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- I know the show and will admit that in terms of forming a small core of very dedicated fans it was successful. However in terms of broader appeal, longevity and comercial viability it was a failure - hence why it was cancelled after one season and not picked up by any other network and hence why the movie was also a comercial failure - losing millions of dollars for the studio. I was not saying anything about the quality or otherwise of the show. [[Guest9999 (talk) 23:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)]]
-
- So once again, why is your negative opinion of this show in any way relevant? It isn't. On the other hand, it's widespread success, perhaps not at the hands of Fox but otherwise, has been documented and is well known. It seems you feel the need to respond to every single "keep" but you don't, so stop, especially when it's simply to reiterate your irrelevant reason for nominating this article for deletion. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep all - Series is quite notable, despite its short lifespan, and the characters merit individual articles (and the movie, which opened at #2 according to its entry, was not by any stretch a "box office bomb"). ◄Zahakiel► 18:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment The notability of the series and the films is not under discussion here. But as Notability is not automatically inherited and these articles don't establish their subjects' notability at all, the articles need better arguments to be kept as separate entities. – sgeureka t•c 20:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment- Hence my follow-up statement, "and the characters merit individual articles." Another editor contributing to this discussion has already demonstrated that the individual articles here are sourceable, thus this is a matter for cleanup and not deletion. ◄Zahakiel► 20:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment How do they merit individual articles? What has been shown by now is that these characters exist and deserve mention, but not that they deserve individual articles. Until significant real-world coverage by third-party sources has been shown, none of these characters are considered notable enough to "deserve" a separate article. (This addresses all keep votes based on "but they're notable", not you in particular.) – sgeureka t•c 20:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- If you think they should have mention, then proposing a merger is the proper course, not an AfD. I do think that (as per the sourcing indicated by the user below) each of these articles can be stand-alone entries, but I'd not oppose merging at least some of them for now. ◄Zahakiel► 21:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- I already !voted merge. And I would also have prefered the {{merge}} way instead of going to AfD, but what's done is done, and the AfD route may bring results faster. These articles also have enough fan backing to not be deleted, so no worries on my side that these characters will receive the coverage they deserve by wiki guidelines and policies. – sgeureka t•c 21:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry about that, I had you mistaken for the nominator for some reason. ◄Zahakiel► 14:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep all - Series is notable, these are all main characters in the series, and there's independent coverage in Finding Serenity. , off the top of my head.
Borders on bad-faith nom here.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 19:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)- Just added ref to scholarly article to Inara Serra.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 19:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- There's also this article, but I don't have easy access to it to see how much it talks about the individual characters. Anybody else? --uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 19:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Rowley, C. (2007) ‘Firefly/Serenity: Gendered Space and Gendered Bodies,’ British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 9(2), pp. 318-325.
- Keep all - Notability of series, plus attendant spin-offs (film, graphic novel, etc.). Rationale for deletion is largely POV. -- Alcarillo (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Merge to one article, not really notable on their own. Stifle (talk) 19:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Merge to one article. As much as it pains to say it, none of these characters are culturally significant enough to warrant their own article. -- The Wookieepedian (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- I think we're going to find enough material sourcing Inara: the others, maybe not. I see the nom didn't include Mal and River, so he obviously did his homework: I withdraw my "possible bad-faith" comment above.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 20:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Merge into Firefly (TV series)#Main characters and Serenity (film)#Cast. I'm a flan, but the characters are unfortunately not yet notable enough for individual encyclopedia articles (maybe after season 7 of Firefly (will too!)). I just referenced Kaylee's full name and nickname to 3 books and 1 DVD, so the sources exist, but they're about the show and movie, not the character. -- Jeandré, 2007-11-16t23:49z
- Keep Series is well known, and all ensemble characters are notable. Article is harmless. I would encourage more "real world" tie-in, but would vote inclusion first. See precedent discussion on Diagon Alley from Harry Potter. Similar mass deletion request of fictional element that also resulted in a "keep" and "merge" decision.--Knulclunk (talk) 02:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- Reply - your comment reads like a list of arguements to avoid (which I know is only an essay) - something being harmless is not a reason to keep it, that other stuff exists is not a good arguements these articles should survive on their own merits, notability is not inherited, we don't have articles on the spouses of notable people unless they are notable in their own right, no thing is inherently notable, there is nothing that says that all "ensemble characters are notable" in guidelines or policies. You say that you would encourage "real world tie in" yet there is no evidence that any exists. On what basis from WP:NN or WP:FICT are you saying that "all ensemble characters are notable" - because both clearly lay out a requirement for real world, third party information which isn't present here. Finally consensus can change so a highly contentious AfD from several months ago doesn't neccessarily mean much. [[Guest9999 (talk) 11:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)]]
-
- Citing prior precedent is a far cry from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Let's try to play fair here. The !vote was clearly explained as an inclusionist !vote, with emphasis on possible improvement. If you're going to cite WP:ITSA you might want to notice that it applies to "delete votes" too - I seem to have noticed you passing some pretty undue judgment on the series, and you appear to have decided that these articles are and always will be fancruft - something that I would seriously doubt since the consensus here is basically keep or merge. So you know, if you're going to call somebody out on their comments reading like WP:ATA, you might want to make sure your nomination doesn't read like "WP:IDONTLIKEIT and I assume it has no sources or possible room for improvement/merging." --Cheeser1 (talk) 11:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I agree I did bog down the nomination with irelevant information (the tv show's and movie's lack of poularity) but I still feel the main point - which has still not really been adequately addressed - that the articles' lack any kind of reliable, independant sourcing was made clear. The reason I mentioned the other stuff was that in previous nominations people have tried to give the popularity of a series as evidence of notability of its characters (e.g. Harry Potter 300,000,000 books sold) and I thought by showing that the series had not been popular (canceled aftre 1 season, box office flop) those arguements might not be made. [[Guest9999 (talk) 13:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)]]
- Citing prior precedent is a far cry from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Let's try to play fair here. The !vote was clearly explained as an inclusionist !vote, with emphasis on possible improvement. If you're going to cite WP:ITSA you might want to notice that it applies to "delete votes" too - I seem to have noticed you passing some pretty undue judgment on the series, and you appear to have decided that these articles are and always will be fancruft - something that I would seriously doubt since the consensus here is basically keep or merge. So you know, if you're going to call somebody out on their comments reading like WP:ATA, you might want to make sure your nomination doesn't read like "WP:IDONTLIKEIT and I assume it has no sources or possible room for improvement/merging." --Cheeser1 (talk) 11:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Reply Your link to "arguments to avoid" seems to cover your nomination as well WP:JUSTAPOLICY, WP:BIG, WP:JNN, etc. But, truly, I fail to see the advantage to WP to remove a well written article of a character that a user may be looking for information on. Is the article on Jayne Cobb (Firefly) getting in the way of Jayne Cobb (cricket player)? Please explain again how deleting this article will ease Wikipedia's usability to the user. Perhaps there is a guideline or essay...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knulclunk (talk • contribs)
-
- In Guest9999's defense, he also used WP:NN and WP:FICT (notability guidelines), WP:OR (policy) and WP:WAF (MOS). The articles clearly violate all four of them (Guest9999 forgot to cite WP:NOT#PLOT). Not much has changed about the articles' state since the AfD opened, so his assertions still seem true. – sgeureka t•c 17:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- I didn't just quote policies as is implied by WP:JUSTAPOLICY I explained why I felt they were in violation of the polcies - namely that there was no real world information and no secondary sources. I would also say that I did not say it was just not notable as I gave both reasons and policies to explain my position. I am sorry if I did muddy the water by making arguements that were essentially WP:BIG they were largely meant to be a bit of background for people who didn't know much about the subject and had no place in this AfD nomination. I apologise. [[Guest9999 (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)]]
- Merge with trimmed plot details, while maintaining all the character information, to List of major characters from Firefly or similar. Much as I do love Firefly I don't think it's particularly necessary to have articles for every major character, particularly as much of the plot details overlap due to the relatively small number of episodes. A more readable article could probably be produced by combining them. If the series and/or movies were still likely to be continued I would say individual character articles could be justified easily enough, but I just don't think there's enough verifiable, notable information to really warrant it. I do agree that Mal and River probably do warrant independent articles, I agree with the nominator's decision not to include them in this. ~ Mazca (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep All I'm a fan that came to the series after the movie. The individual character pages were very helpful. I just think that if they were merged onto one single page, these pages would be forced to cut information that I found useful. Please keep them around.
- Strong Keep for each of these articles. There are additional sources that could be used to improve these articles and they could stand a bit of rewriting but the solution is to improve them, not to delete them. With the continued expansion of the Firefly universe thanks to spinoff comics, books, and the possibility of a sequel movie there will be additional details available from reliable sources to continue expanding these articles for years to come. - Dravecky (talk) 08:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, that something may be notable in the future is not criteria for current inclusion. [[Guest9999 (talk) 11:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)]]
- Reread what he said, he isn't predicting future notability. He is saying sources currently exist (for instance third-party sources Finding Serenity (BenBella Press, 2005) or Serenity Found (BenBella Press, 2007) or the forthcoming Serenity comic books (Dark Horse). Note that two of those are not future publications).Shsilver (talk) 13:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- The comic books are clearly no an independant third party source - as required to establish notability. No one has provided any information from the other sources to say that they contain the relevant information to establish notability for the characters. I would also question the indepenence of said sources as they seem have been compiled and edited by an acquantence of the creator of the television series. Even then does a collection of essays meet the depth of coverage requirement set out in WP:NN? [[Guest9999 (talk) 14:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)]]
- With essays in the books by individuals such as science fiction authors Orson Scott Card, Lawrence Watt-Evans, John C. Wright, Mercedes Lackey, and Tanya Huff, as well as philosophy professor Lyle Zynda (IU-SB), physics professor Ken Wharton (San Jose State University), and editor Ginjer Buchanan, none of whom are affiliated with the series, I would argue that yes, there is independence despite a tie between the editor and the series. Another third-party source is the documentary "Done the Impossible" (2006).Shsilver (talk) 14:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Again to establish notability the source must be about the individual characters to justify an article. If the characters are only mentioned in the context of the series then the articles should be merged into the article for the series. If the cast as a whole is discussed then there should be an article on the cast. The individual charcetrs must be notable in their own right, notability is not inherited. No one has given any evidence that the content of the essay collections will establish notability. [[Guest9999 (talk) 14:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)]]
- You mean besides the book and film that have been mentioned? Those are independent sources. There is clearly support to have articles about each character - you seem to be supporting a merge unless there are separate sources about each character. There is no such policy, guideline, or precedent. Furthermore, that is no reason for an AfD. That's a moment when you should suggest a merge. --Cheeser1 (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- I started the AfD as there are no independent secondary sources that are cited in the article and I did not believe any cwould or could be found. As it is nobody has given a source about any of the characters mentioned - they have given the names of sources that are about the tv series. If a politicians spouse is mentioned in an article about the politician that does not make the spouse notable. In the same way if characters are mentioned in an article (or film or essay) about the tv series or other element of the tv series that does not make the character notable. Sources have emerged since the begining of the AfD which seem to mention the charcters in the context of the show, I was therefire only suggesting that it might be appropriate to move the information from the individual character articles into the article for the series. I still think the individual articles should be deleted as none of the information is sourced (or at least no sources are given on the pages) and nothing has been shown that establishes the notability of teh characters in their own right. Also I would seriously question whether a film made "by fans for fan" can truely be considered to be an independant source with the depth to establish notability. [[Guest9999 (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)]]
- Yes, that's why documentaries on, say, Star Wars are okay. Because the people who make those hate the Star Wars films. Documentaries and books with character analysis are OBVIOUSLY sources of reliable information about characters not "just the show." You can't possibly sit here and demand that a book be published about each character separately. This is absurd. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- I can't demand anything, this is a collaborative project. I have no problem if the same source deals with each character individually and in their own right. For instance having a chapter or an individual essay about the character (or characters) would be fine - having an essay or chapter about the series in general which mentioned the character would not be (in terms of establishing notability). As for the film I would say a fan talking about a series is not a reliable source and so I don't see why it becomes a reliable source because were filmed whilst doing it. [[Guest9999 (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)]]
- "The Good Book," by Eric Greene, Serenity Found, edited by Jane Espensen with Leah Watson, BenBella Press 2007, pp.79-94, ISBN=9781933771212, an essay specifically about Derrial Book's role on the show and in the film.Shsilver (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- "More Than a Marriage of Convenience," by Michelle Sagara West, Finding Serenity, edited by Jane Espensen with Glenn Yeffeth, BenBella Press 2005, pp.97-103, ISBN=1932100431, an essat specifically about Wash and Zoe and the portrayal of their marriage on the show.Shsilver (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- I can't demand anything, this is a collaborative project. I have no problem if the same source deals with each character individually and in their own right. For instance having a chapter or an individual essay about the character (or characters) would be fine - having an essay or chapter about the series in general which mentioned the character would not be (in terms of establishing notability). As for the film I would say a fan talking about a series is not a reliable source and so I don't see why it becomes a reliable source because were filmed whilst doing it. [[Guest9999 (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)]]
- Yes, that's why documentaries on, say, Star Wars are okay. Because the people who make those hate the Star Wars films. Documentaries and books with character analysis are OBVIOUSLY sources of reliable information about characters not "just the show." You can't possibly sit here and demand that a book be published about each character separately. This is absurd. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- I started the AfD as there are no independent secondary sources that are cited in the article and I did not believe any cwould or could be found. As it is nobody has given a source about any of the characters mentioned - they have given the names of sources that are about the tv series. If a politicians spouse is mentioned in an article about the politician that does not make the spouse notable. In the same way if characters are mentioned in an article (or film or essay) about the tv series or other element of the tv series that does not make the character notable. Sources have emerged since the begining of the AfD which seem to mention the charcters in the context of the show, I was therefire only suggesting that it might be appropriate to move the information from the individual character articles into the article for the series. I still think the individual articles should be deleted as none of the information is sourced (or at least no sources are given on the pages) and nothing has been shown that establishes the notability of teh characters in their own right. Also I would seriously question whether a film made "by fans for fan" can truely be considered to be an independant source with the depth to establish notability. [[Guest9999 (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)]]
- You mean besides the book and film that have been mentioned? Those are independent sources. There is clearly support to have articles about each character - you seem to be supporting a merge unless there are separate sources about each character. There is no such policy, guideline, or precedent. Furthermore, that is no reason for an AfD. That's a moment when you should suggest a merge. --Cheeser1 (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Again to establish notability the source must be about the individual characters to justify an article. If the characters are only mentioned in the context of the series then the articles should be merged into the article for the series. If the cast as a whole is discussed then there should be an article on the cast. The individual charcetrs must be notable in their own right, notability is not inherited. No one has given any evidence that the content of the essay collections will establish notability. [[Guest9999 (talk) 14:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)]]
- I think then the question is do these sources have the depth required to establish notability - or since articles should be based around the information gained from reliable, independent sources - could these sources (supplemented with information from primary sources) be the basis for the content of the articles. Again, currently the articles are completely unsourced. [[Guest9999 (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)]]
- Clearly, as someone who has read those essays, I would say yes. And I feel you should have called for citations before calling for AfD. But I'm also not going to spend a lot of time updating an article that might be deleted shortly after I put the work in. If the AfD fails, then I'll put the time and effort in.Shsilver (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- With essays in the books by individuals such as science fiction authors Orson Scott Card, Lawrence Watt-Evans, John C. Wright, Mercedes Lackey, and Tanya Huff, as well as philosophy professor Lyle Zynda (IU-SB), physics professor Ken Wharton (San Jose State University), and editor Ginjer Buchanan, none of whom are affiliated with the series, I would argue that yes, there is independence despite a tie between the editor and the series. Another third-party source is the documentary "Done the Impossible" (2006).Shsilver (talk) 14:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- "As it is nobody has given a source about any of the characters mentioned - they have given the names of sources that are about the tv series" -- Rather inaccurate. I posted here three days ago that I had added a ref to the Inara article that dealt specifically with her. I also quoted another article that, from the Google Scholar excerpt, also seemed to be about specific characters, but I don't have access to the journal to verify that. So, please drop the "nobody has cited anything" argument, 'mkay? --uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 14:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- The comic books are clearly no an independant third party source - as required to establish notability. No one has provided any information from the other sources to say that they contain the relevant information to establish notability for the characters. I would also question the indepenence of said sources as they seem have been compiled and edited by an acquantence of the creator of the television series. Even then does a collection of essays meet the depth of coverage requirement set out in WP:NN? [[Guest9999 (talk) 14:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)]]
- Reread what he said, he isn't predicting future notability. He is saying sources currently exist (for instance third-party sources Finding Serenity (BenBella Press, 2005) or Serenity Found (BenBella Press, 2007) or the forthcoming Serenity comic books (Dark Horse). Note that two of those are not future publications).Shsilver (talk) 13:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep reliable sources have been mentioned by several other editors, they just need to be added to the article. Edward321 (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete All as these characters have no reliable primary or secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside of the television series or film spinoffs. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete All or merge into single List of as was done with the minor characters as per nom. No notability on their own and only source is companion book to show. No other primarily or secondary third-party reliable sources or real-world relevance. Articles mostly fancruft and in-universe. Collectonian (talk) 05:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- So are you claiming that the reference I added to Inara Serra several days ago is not third-party, not reliable, or not real-world?--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 05:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- What does that reference actually source in the article? Furthermore, does one (or two or three) source(s) demonstrate significant coverage to establish notability? These articles either need establish notability through real-world relevance very fast, or the next AfD (if this one ends in a keep) is just around the corner. – sgeureka t•c 10:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- It sources several things, most notably details about her relationship with Mal.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 12:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Her relationship with Mal is mostly of in-universe notability, but WP:FICT requires real-world content. Does the source say anything about the writers' inspiration for the character? How the actress was cast for the role? What about make-up and costumes? Was there merchandise for the character? It seems like one or two paragraphs for reception and other cultural impact could be squeezed out of this source, but none of this is currently included in the article, so you'd only have good faith working for the article at the moment. – sgeureka t•c 13:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- If there are proper sources about that relationship, then it is notable out-of-universe. Furthermore, you should not be threatening repeated AfDs like that. It's highly unproductive, and seems to indicate an unwillingness to cooperate with the established outcome of this AfD. --Cheeser1 (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- On the other hand, one paragraph of in-universe/out-of-universe notability (which still hasn't been added to the article) does not justify a separate article, that was my point. And I was also actually encouraging the addition of real-world content. Obviously, these articles' year-long existance before this AfD was highly unproductive, and editors in favor of keeping them were and still are unwilling to prove the nom's assertions wrong. This is all that has changed in the articles since the AfD has opened. Not very much in the light that the articles are "in danger". I can just hope that continued "threatening" (which I stated as a normal wiki procedure fact, not as my intention) actually accomplishes something, as nothing else seems to. – sgeureka t•c 14:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that out-of-universe references are required to substantiate the article per: WP:N. This policy says nothing about article content or how many paragraphs must contain a particular sort of information. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- I fully agree, so I don't know why you replied. None of these articles have demonstrated significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject ("significant" in this context would mean at least 10-20, telling from experience, and depending on how indepth they are). The policy does not say how secondary information should be arranged, right, but neither article has a single paragraph of out-of-universe information to begin with. So, unless proven otherwise, they fail WP:N as individual articles and should be merged in the hope that they can establish notability as a group. – sgeureka t•c 08:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Could you please explain where you've gotten the idea that 10-20 references are required to demonstrate notability? Furthermore, you're still arguing that the content compels the articles to fail WP:N, a point which (as I stated) is totally invalid. If the sources are there and the content needs more of it, then fix it (or ask someone else to). --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Before asserting that I applied these guidelines and policies in a "totally invalid" way, would you please actually read them? Wikipedia:Notability – This page in a nutshell: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) – This page in a nutshell: Topics within a fictional universe are notable if they have received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia:Verifiability – The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. I don't see any proof that these characters have received such significant independent coverage. And as you are in favor of keeping the articles as they are, it is your job to source the bulk of these articles (thereby demonstrating notability), not mine. In answer you other question, judging from my experience and also from any Featured Article, you get about two encyclopedic sentences out of every source. Two paragraphs (5 to 10 sentences each) of out-of-universe information would demonstrate significant coverage -> 10 to 20 sources to establish notability. Further questions? – sgeureka t•c 21:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Once again, WP:N says nothing about article content, only whether or not an article exists. Sources have been provided right here on the AfD. 10-20 sources is not the standard (not by a long shot). I've really got nothing more to say. This is an AfD. If you'd like the article(s) to be improved, take it up there. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Please re-read Wikipedia:Notability#Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)#Dealing with fiction very closely. Thank you. – sgeureka t•c 09:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Once again, WP:N says nothing about article content, only whether or not an article exists. Sources have been provided right here on the AfD. 10-20 sources is not the standard (not by a long shot). I've really got nothing more to say. This is an AfD. If you'd like the article(s) to be improved, take it up there. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Before asserting that I applied these guidelines and policies in a "totally invalid" way, would you please actually read them? Wikipedia:Notability – This page in a nutshell: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) – This page in a nutshell: Topics within a fictional universe are notable if they have received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia:Verifiability – The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. I don't see any proof that these characters have received such significant independent coverage. And as you are in favor of keeping the articles as they are, it is your job to source the bulk of these articles (thereby demonstrating notability), not mine. In answer you other question, judging from my experience and also from any Featured Article, you get about two encyclopedic sentences out of every source. Two paragraphs (5 to 10 sentences each) of out-of-universe information would demonstrate significant coverage -> 10 to 20 sources to establish notability. Further questions? – sgeureka t•c 21:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Could you please explain where you've gotten the idea that 10-20 references are required to demonstrate notability? Furthermore, you're still arguing that the content compels the articles to fail WP:N, a point which (as I stated) is totally invalid. If the sources are there and the content needs more of it, then fix it (or ask someone else to). --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- I fully agree, so I don't know why you replied. None of these articles have demonstrated significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject ("significant" in this context would mean at least 10-20, telling from experience, and depending on how indepth they are). The policy does not say how secondary information should be arranged, right, but neither article has a single paragraph of out-of-universe information to begin with. So, unless proven otherwise, they fail WP:N as individual articles and should be merged in the hope that they can establish notability as a group. – sgeureka t•c 08:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that out-of-universe references are required to substantiate the article per: WP:N. This policy says nothing about article content or how many paragraphs must contain a particular sort of information. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- On the other hand, one paragraph of in-universe/out-of-universe notability (which still hasn't been added to the article) does not justify a separate article, that was my point. And I was also actually encouraging the addition of real-world content. Obviously, these articles' year-long existance before this AfD was highly unproductive, and editors in favor of keeping them were and still are unwilling to prove the nom's assertions wrong. This is all that has changed in the articles since the AfD has opened. Not very much in the light that the articles are "in danger". I can just hope that continued "threatening" (which I stated as a normal wiki procedure fact, not as my intention) actually accomplishes something, as nothing else seems to. – sgeureka t•c 14:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- If there are proper sources about that relationship, then it is notable out-of-universe. Furthermore, you should not be threatening repeated AfDs like that. It's highly unproductive, and seems to indicate an unwillingness to cooperate with the established outcome of this AfD. --Cheeser1 (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Her relationship with Mal is mostly of in-universe notability, but WP:FICT requires real-world content. Does the source say anything about the writers' inspiration for the character? How the actress was cast for the role? What about make-up and costumes? Was there merchandise for the character? It seems like one or two paragraphs for reception and other cultural impact could be squeezed out of this source, but none of this is currently included in the article, so you'd only have good faith working for the article at the moment. – sgeureka t•c 13:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- It sources several things, most notably details about her relationship with Mal.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 12:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- What does that reference actually source in the article? Furthermore, does one (or two or three) source(s) demonstrate significant coverage to establish notability? These articles either need establish notability through real-world relevance very fast, or the next AfD (if this one ends in a keep) is just around the corner. – sgeureka t•c 10:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- So are you claiming that the reference I added to Inara Serra several days ago is not third-party, not reliable, or not real-world?--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 05:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- If we add to the Jayne Cobb article more about the popularity of Jayne's HAT in the real world knitting community, does that count? --Knulclunk (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well, do it, and we'll find out. :-)--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 15:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Would work great in a costumes section. Is there a third-party article talking about the hat (e.g. like this Tarot article about Tarot in Carnivàle)? Otherwise, it is not more than one or two sourced sentences, which don't establish the notability of the character much in the absense of other material. – sgeureka t•c 15:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Merge all into Characters of firefly or some similar, although the series was good, and the film was enjoyable (yes, I know it's OR) it was only one part series, and one film wihout major commercial sucsess. Notable enough for an article, but not for a whole platoon of them. And that's coming from a fan. --RedHillian (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well, there's hardly a platoon, only articles for its main points, significantly improving our coverage over what one article would be able to do. And here's another thing that's mentioned surprisingly seldomly: the significance of a subject does not necessarily scale with how much there is to say, or needs to be said, about it. For instance, a complex character-based soap opera comic strip may be well within its rights to have articles dedicated to the cast in order to make the strip comprehensible to Wikipedia readers. Yet the strip can be smaller than one about a hedgehog. That swears. --Kizor (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per policy - no real-world content to establish notability. Eusebeus (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep all or Merge because they're damn important to all the browncoats out here. User:Ragnarokmephy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.255.185 (talk) 04:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
