Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Sun


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Blue Sun

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I'm as big a fan of 'Firefly' as the next geek, but this article fails pretty much all our policies: it's on a non-notable element of a fictional setting, without any independent references, that consists almost entirely of original research. If the original research (i.e. the list of appearances and speculation) was removed, there wouldn't be enough content left to justify an article. Robofish (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * To elaborate: this organisation was never directly referred to in the series itself, only in the DVD special features and commentaries. Notability within the series is minor; real-world notability is essentially nonexistent. Robofish (talk) 02:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree: within the series it is clear to the viewer that there is something ubiquitous and ominous about Blue Sun. All Browncoats know that. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  03:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - no evidence of notability outside the Browncoat/fangeek community (such as myself, my wife, our daughter, our friends, etc.). Sorry, but it just ain't making it. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  03:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * QUERY: Do we have a notability guideline for fictitious organizations? At risk of seeming to make a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, we do have articles for comparable organizations within fictional continuities (e.g. Omni Consumer Products; Cyberdyne Systems), and I don't know what guideline other than GNG apply. If we delete this article, do we undermine those articles? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * reply - both of those are in media franchises that are much larger in public consciousness than the Firefly franchise (albeit in my opinion, much inferior). (And yes, yours is an WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument.) -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  21:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't an argument of any kind, just an observation accompanying a question. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (A question that hasn't been answered, incidentally. In which notability guideline does "scale of media franchise in public consciousness" appear?) - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, there is a proposed WP:Notability (fiction), but it's highly controversial and not universally agreed upon. General notability guideline would apply here though, I reckon; as for what that would mean for Cyberdyne, Weyland-Yutani and the rest of them... I guess it comes down to whether they're significantly covered by independent reliable sources. Blue Sun, at least, arguably isn't. Robofish (talk) 02:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per our GNG. This is the kind of stuff that makes it lamentable that our fict guideline is in such a state of disrepair, as it ought clearly to be enjoined. Eusebeus (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2009 (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.