Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alliance (Firefly)

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 keep. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance (Firefly)

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

Deprodded without comment. No notability asserted out of universe. No sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Oh my god, it's grotesque! Oh, and there's something in a jar. Unless significant sources can be presented, it doesn't have any real world notability. It's certainly an interesting read, but it's unsourced, gives no real world context, and fails WP:GNG. It would probably be more appropriate here (although they're already essentially the same content, so unless I'm missing something, there's not even really anything to "rescue" from this article). - Sudo Ghost 16:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - While the sources that I found and the ones that were inititally in the article were not adequate (to me), it seems more have been added since then, and after looking through them, I think it is notable enough for a standalone article (although stronger sources certainly wouldn't hurt). - Sudo Ghost 02:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is discussed in detail in sources such as this, that and more. It therefore passes the WP:GNG and the complaints of the nomination are just a matter of ordinary editing per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those don't don't seem to be significant coverage, the first two have minimal mentions of the Alliance and only within in the context of the plot at a whole; this would support information in the main Firefly (TV series) article but doesn't seem to warrant a separate article. There's very little in those sources to draw from; they would made good sources for supporting a brief summary in the main article, but not much else. - Sudo Ghost 18:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources fully meet the guidance of WP:SIGCOV. The content obviously relates to other aspects of the show too but also draws parallels with real-world entities such as the real USA. As a separate article, the topic is comparable with Galactic Empire (Star Wars), Terran Federation (Blake's 7), United Federation of Planets, Instrumentality of Mankind and numerous other SF galactic empires. These are all separate articles and so there is nothing especially wrong about this topic being treated in this way too. Warden (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is comparable, but the sources are not. Nobody is saying it's not a valid topic and the fact that there are similar articles doesn't mean that this one should exist on that merit alone. The coverage in those sources are not significant enough to warrant a separate article. - Sudo Ghost 18:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in this case are superior to those other cases. That's because there is an extensive critical literature which we can draw from. Warden (talk) 09:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Using WP:OTHERSTUFF to show why these sources are better than other articles doesn't factor into an article being kept when the article fails to meet WP:GNG. The sources are either independent and not significant coverage, or significant coverage and non-independent. Sources have to be significant coverage, independent, reliable, and third-party, not "best 3 out of 4". - Sudo Ghost 18:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is just a guideline which is supposed to summarise actual practise. Our actual practise is clearly to maintain articles at this level because we don't just have the four examples I listed, we have dozens of them. Likewise, the sources listed already are quite adequate but that doesn't mean that's all. As another example, the book Investigating Firefly and Serenity contains an entire chapter about this topic: "The Alliance Isn't Some Evil Empire". Or we might look at The Alliance's War on Science in Serenity Found. Or Cultural Geography in Outer Space: East Meets West in Firefly and Serenity, and so on. And even if all those sources didn't support a great deal of content then all we'd do is just merge back up into some more general article like Firefly (TV series), Firefly media franchise or galactic empire. There isn't any kind of case for deletion. Warden (talk) 19:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See my response above. - Sudo Ghost 02:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Because what the article is is someone who watches the show telling us about it. Borock (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to have read the article which makes multiple references to Joss Whedon's views and creative intentions. This is not material which is derived simply from watching the show but instead corresponds to the material found in the numerous sources such as the ones I cite above. Warden (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added in one reference to a book. To understand this notable series you need to understand all the important aspects of it. And you can find ample coverage of it. Dream Focus 20:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So...WP:ITSIMPORTANT then? The primary article for Firefly is more than capable of describing this aspect; the lack of significant reliable sources shows it's not as critical as all that. A brief non-significant and non-independent mention in a book does not warrant a separate article. - Sudo Ghost 21:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just plot (WP:NOT#PLOT) and WP:Original research based on observation of the plot. For this kind of fictional element, I doubt there's much real-world information to start with to sustain the in-universe info for a spinout article (this organisation can't be produced, designed, or received, and the creator's inspiration for this certainly fits in the main article without this extra article). – sgeureka ^t•c 08:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the Colonel and Dream. Several sources with out of universe analyses have been added. Even the in-universe information is of considerable encyclopaedic and cultural value. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep oh look! It's the same set of voices as the Browncoat and Reaver (Firefly) AfD debates. On both sides, pretty much. And just like those debates, this one is characterized by those arguing for keeping the article having plenty of adequate sources to meet the GNG. BUT, even if it weren't so, the content could clearly be merged to another Firefly or Serenity article, per WP:ATD: just because the article was not adequately sourced when the AfD was started does not mean that any of this content is un-sourceable. Jclemens (talk) 02:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rant about editors (an inaccurate one at that), not a keep rationale. WP:GNG requies significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. - Sudo Ghost 03:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You want me to be less subtle? OK: it meets the GNG through the non-trivial independent reliable sources listed above. Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hastily gathering any source that happens to use the word "Alliance" in it is not significant coverage, and interviews are not independent sources. None of those sources show notability, but rather reinforce the fact that it belongs in the main article, not as a standalone. Verifiabile does not mean notable. - Sudo Ghost 18:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC) See my reply above) - Sudo Ghost 02:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the Alliance isn't the main topic of the sources, I think they provide more than trivial mentions, which satisfies the "significant coverage" criterion in the WP:GNG. I agree that the article is written in primarily an in-universe style, but it should be expanded or re-written to emphasize the real-world perspective, not deleted. Braincricket (talk) 09:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per Warden. CallawayRox (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colonel Warden & Dream. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 22:12, 12 July 2012 (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.