Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Browncoat (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Consensus is to retain this as a subarticle about the Firefly (TV series) fandom. A strong minority is in favor of a merger with the "fandom" section of the main article; this can continue to be discussed on the talk page.  Sandstein  09:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Browncoat
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Dicdef. The fictional meaning is entirely in-universe; the fandom meaning has only two sources that merely name-drop the term, and the rest is primary sources. Delete or merge to Firefly article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 05:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 05:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 05:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Article meets WP:V, WP:N. TBrandley 06:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you wanna clarify that, or just pour more alphabet soup on me? How does it meet the notability guidelines? How is it verifiable? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Note the closing of the earlier AfD, which noted that sufficient RS'es exist. Guess what? They still do.  Inexcusable nomination from an editor who should know better, who has been previously counseled on such issues. Jclemens (talk) 06:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What AFD are you reading? The one I saw was just the opposite. Guest9999 pointed out that whatever few sources were dug up were not reliable, just one-off name-drops in the context of something else — for instance, naming them as one of many fandoms present at a con. The other !votes in the AFD were WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSNOTABLE, with no one else even acknowledging the sourcing or lack thereof except for the nominator. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's see... who uses it? Wired, Wired again, Wired a third time 2 days ago (see WP:WIRED for my thoughts on that), The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (barely a week old...), Huffington Post (again, a bit over a week ago), CNN, USA Today, LA Times... and that's just Google News. Moving on to Google Scholar we have MA thesis, a paper from Australia, an honors college thesis, another student thesis... and the list goes on.  Oh, and books? Cult Pop Culture: How the Fringe Became Mainstream, Joss Whedon: Conversations, Serenity Found, and the list goes on and on and on.  So yes, you've completely failed to do any research, or have done it so badly that it becomes a WP:COMPETENCE fail, despite being counseled nicely in the recently-closed RfC/U to be more careful with your repeat nominations of previously-kept topics. I'll give you 24 hours to review these links and withdraw your nomination with an apology for your carelessness.  Failing that, I really do think it's time for you to be topic banned from AfD. Jclemens (talk) 07:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep This is obviously a spinoff from the main article Firefly (TV series). If we wanted to consolidate this material then merger would be the way to go, per WP:PRESERVE, and the nomination itself talks of merger.  AFD is therefore inappropriate.  Note also WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome.". Warden (talk) 08:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Firefly (TV_series). So, "Browncoat" is simply a synonym for "Firefly fan", and what the fans did can be summarized neatly in the main article. The in-universe term doesn't help here either; it doesn't matter in the real world. Not enough for a stand-alone article per WP:AVOIDSPLIT. – sgeureka t•c 09:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge with redirect to Firefly (TV_series). As an in-universe term it should be a redirect anyway, and as a collective term for the fanbase it would be better placed in the existing article. Fan activities in relation to a franchise are inherently dependent on that franchise. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 10:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - The fanbase is strong enough that its activity caused a film to be made based on the original series (by a different company), it runs conventions, and the fanbase (Browncoats) has been responsible for an annual charity showing at cities around the world. A feature-length documentary has been made about the fanbase focusing on activities not related to the original television series. Shsilver (talk) 11:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep As the article itself points out, this is more than an in-universe term: it's also used outside the series to distinguish the fanbase, much like Trekkie isn't an in-universe term just because it's derived from the title of the series/films. Maybe the article ought to concentrate on the fans, and mention the other meaning simply as etymology. /Julle (talk) 11:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Firefly (TV_series) - As per Sgeureka/Yunshui views above. Not enough for a stand alone.--Logical Fuzz (talk) 12:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Needs expansion and overhaul. "is a term with two meanings" is a poor opening, as the in-universe use is never going to be a standalone article, but there's plenty of coverage in WP:RS of Firefly fandom to support its own article. --BDD (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyone clamoring for sources — are you going to add them? I'd appreciate that. Otherwise we're right back where we started. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Information.svg Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Northamerica1000(talk) 18:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just as a process note: WP:V only requires sources to be identified (they have been, above) but not in place. Yes, they should be added, but assuming this is kept, taking it to AFD again because the ID'd sources were not otherwise added would be wrong. --M ASEM (t) 15:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge. I change to merge, per Logical Fuzz's reasoning above. TBrandley 18:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Then possibly merge to Firefly (TV_series). The nomination appears to have the error of being based upon the state of the article rather than the availability of sources. Per WP:NRVE, topic notability is about the availability of significant coverage in reliable sources, and not based upon whether or not sources are present in articles. The sources cited above by user:Jclemens strongly suggests topic notability, and the information should be PRESERVED rather than blanket-deleted. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per Jclemens and Warden and ban Ten Pound Hammer from AFD. CallawayRox (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - this is even sillier than it was the first time (and yes, I'm still a Browncoat and disclosing it upfront). -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  19:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You mean the sources dug up in the last AFD that no one seems to want to add to the article? How much longer do you need?! Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per Jclemens. Ample coverage has been found.  Please stop pointless AFD nominations all the time.  Look at the overwhelming keep consensus from the previous AFD, sources found and enough to prove it was Notable.    D r e a m Focus  19:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge if needed to Firefly (TV_series) - Sorry, but apart form the SF Chronicle article, I see name-drops of the "the fans call themselves Brownshirts, named after the bla bla..." variety only.  Just read through the article at present; very short sections, sparse sentences, almost every one of which is individually cited; that is the hallmark of trying to squeeze too much notability blood from too little stone.  This can be summed up i na quick paragraph at the merget target noted above.  Nerd chic is all the rage these days (thank you Zooey Deschanel), but there's just not enough out there to put this into Trekkie or Juggalo territory. Tarc (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Firefly (TV series). One reliable source does not put this on the same footing as Trekkie (sorry, Trekker). Nothing much to merge. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep as per close of previous AFD. The sources are still valid and the term remains in common use for the fans of the show and the film.  DiverScout (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Notable term with adequate sources describing the "out of universe" context of the term. Article passes WP:GNG. - SudoGhost 03:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Not a dictdef. Maybe the lead should be changed so we use the word rather than mention it: "A Browncoat is a Firefly fan" rather than "'Browncoat' is a word which refers to a Firefly fan". Anyway, I think there's enough significant coverage in reliable sources to support an article on Firefly fandom. Meets WP:GNG. The article needs work, but that's no reason to delete it. Maybe content should be merged from Firefly (TV_series) to here. Braincricket (talk) 12:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Firefly (TV_series). Notability within the franchise, but currently not notable on its own. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:17, 13 July 2012 (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.