Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serenity (Firefly episode)

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 SNOW keep all Jclemens (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serenity (Firefly episode)[edit]

Another case of a show with all episodes having articles. The show has its own wiki; detailed episode summaries and so forth should go there while brief summaries belong on an episode list here. The episodes are not notable in and of themselves, particularly as several of them never even aired in the initial run of the show. I'm subsuming all of the episodes in the series into this nomination for ease.

Tyrenon (talk) 09:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not certain but I think these have been discussed before. Either way, there is no reason for deletion; the first episode article, "Serenity", is well-developed, so a better approach would be to bring the others up to a similar level. Several of the articles already incorporate material from DVD commentaries and - more importantly - from independent third-party analysis of the material. Furthermore, fan wikis are not a substitute for an encyclopaedic treatment (which we can certainly do here.) As an aside, I have to object to the nom's stated philosophy: ""Better to delete a hundred minimally notable articles than to let one hoax or piece of non-notable cruft get through. --Ckatz^chat _spy 09:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to discuss my philosophy, take it to my talk page. I'm more than happy to discuss it there. As to the nomination, here's the thing: The TV guidelines state "outstanding episodes", so perhaps the pilot qualifies. However, I sincerely do not feel that there is likely any TV show ever made wherein every episode qualifies as outstanding, whilst coverage in a guide dedicated to the show (or alternatively a brief blurb in a TV guide) doesn't strike me as notable.Tyrenon (talk) 09:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the philosophy is fair comment, especially given that you have close to eight hundred edits in less than two weeks on the site, with the vast majority of them being deletion-related. --Ckatz^chat _spy 09:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because all of the articles are well-developed (although to varying standards), the episodes appear to have individual claims to fame (for example, nominations for or successful winning of awards), and there are sources independant of the episodes themselves and the directly-involved parties (for example, publications like Finding Serenity and its sequel Serenity Found by Jane Espensen and others, or Investigating Firefly and Serenity by Wilcox and Cochran, look like useful sources independant of the show and its producers, and academic study of the show is sometimes considered to come under the umbrella of "Buffy Studies", the journal Slayage may have articles of relevance - Issue 25 is dedicated to Firefly/Serenity).

I disagree with the argument that because there is an independant wiki on Firefly/Serenity, content should be 'farmed out' to there (because I think if there are multiple, reliable, independant sources for the subject, it passes Wikipedia:Notability and should be included on Wikipedia, and that "unaired" episodes are 'less notable' - according to sources given in the articles, two of those episodes were nominated for Hugo Awards, while the third won two "SyFy Genre" awards.

I do concede that most of the articles are a little long on the plot and a little light on the sources, but those are problems best solved by editing, not deleting.

Declared interest: I am a fan of the show.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Firefly notified. -- saberwyn 10:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —-- saberwyn 10:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —-- saberwyn 10:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All articles have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject

Espenson, Jane; Glenn Yeffeth (eds.). Finding Serenity: Anti-heroes, Lost Shepherds and Space Hookers in Joss Whedon's "Firefly". Dallas, Texas: Benbella Books. ISBN 1-932100-43-1.
Rhonda V. Wilcox; Tanya Cochran (20 May 2008). Investigating Firefly and Serenity: Joss Whedon's Worlds Beyond: Science Fiction on the Frontier (Investigating Cult TV Series). I B Tauris & Co Ltd. ISBN 978-1845116545.

There are also these sources to allow for real world production information to be added

Joss Whedon (1 Sep 2005). Serenity: The Official Visual Companion. Titan Books Ltd. ISBN 978-1845760823.
Joss Whedon; et al. (25 August 2006). Firefly: The Official Companion: Volume One. Titan Books Ltd. ISBN 978-1845763145.
Joss Whedon; et al. (25 August 2006). Firefly: The Official Companion: Volume Two. Titan Books Ltd. ISBN 978-1845763725.
The Complete Series: Commentary for "Serenity" (DVD). 2003-12-09. {{cite AV media}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |producer= (help)

Also two of the episodes were nominated for Hugo Awards which makes it difficult to treat all episodes the same. I did find some problems with WP:OR, inline refs and perhaps too much plot on some of these articles, but content issues are not a reason for deletion. Edgepedia (talk) 12:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep as per Edgepedia and Ckatz. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Edgepedia does bring up a valid point about most, if not all of the episodes, being notable and likely to have real-world information added to them. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The episodes have significant independent coverage, thus are notable, thus no reason to delete. Rlendog (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Clearly notable per all the sources above. Added comment that I request the nom to cease nominating articles for deletion for now. You registered for on Wikipedia on May 21st, and you have continually flooded AFD with articles that are clear keeps. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/To Market, to Market (M*A*S*H) (2nd nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metroid: Other M Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shock waves in astrophysics to name a few. Please learn this site's guidelines further before continuing with this. Your userpage says that you are a 'proud deletionist,' but you are completely failing to take the time to learn how to properly use AFD. Perhaps try expanding articles? Vodello (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2009 (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.