Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firefly and Outlaw Star

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was ambiguous.

I count 14 opinions to "delete" (2 anon or very new users discounted), 6 opinions to "keep as is" (3 anon or very new users and one known troll discounted) and 4 that appear to prefer "keep as merge". While the community's opinion on the claim of "original research" remained ambiguous, I will note that the samples presented of specific outside sources were successfully rebutted.

Clearly, there is a decision that this content should not remain as an independent article. However, there is not the overwhelming consensus necessary to delete the content. Despite arguments and counter-arguments, conflicting opinions continued to be added to the discussion. I am going to call this as a "no consensus" decision.

However, noting that the content was originally part of the Firefly (television series) article, I am going to place a copy of the content on that article's Talk page, redirect this article there (to preserve GFDL) and ask the editor/readers of that article to make the final determination of the use or removal of this text. Rossami (talk) 02:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Firefly and Outlaw Star
Original research. delete UtherSRG (talk) 20:27, August 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep It is not original research, it is a theory supported by large numbers of Firefly fans. If all speculation is original research, why is there a speculation section in Firefly (television series) at all? Staxringold 20:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Speculations on par with Lincoln-Kennedy coincidences but completely non-notable.  And besides, this opens the door to creating articles comparing any two remotely related things.  Borderline original research, too.  The idea has been floated around before, but your interpretation of it is original research.R ADICAL B ENDER  &#9733;  21:19, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Note You'll note no one is voting THAT article for deletion. If they're on par, why not vote that for deletion as well? Staxringold 22:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Easy, because, like I said in the second part of that sentence you skipped over, this is completely non-notable. A couple of people thought there were some similarities on the internet.  The Lincoln-Kennedy thing is widely reported.  I've seen newspaper articles on it, I had a worksheet on it in elementary school.  The Firefly-Outlaw Star thing was a couple of random people on the internet. R ADICAL B ENDER  &#9733;  23:05, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge interesting comparison, not really worthy of its own page. Malo 21:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not nearly enough relevant Google results for a subject that is widely-discussed as this would have to be to be worth including. You could come up with similarities like this with just about any sci-fi show. (Or, say, any epic fantasy story written in the last thirty or forty years compared with The Lord of the Rings.) Unless they get sued for copyright infringement or it breaks into mainstream news. -Aranel (" Sarah ") 21:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete If these really are belief commonly held by firefly fans, you should be able to cite published sources that verify that very fact. Otherwise this constitutes original research. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 21:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge. I confess as a Firefly geek I am intrigued. Sdedeo 21:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC) (see below)
 * Merge into Firefly tv series article if sourced and verified, otherwise delete. I share the opinion of Bmicomp. - Mgm|(talk) 21:45, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, speculation. How do you source and verify somebody's opinion?  Zoe 21:56, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Outside sources (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8). 'nuff for you, or you want more? Just hit Ctrl+F 'Outlaw Star' and you'll find numerous other fans who believe there is at least some connection between the two. This is not just my theory, this is not original research. Again, Zoe, why do any speculation sections exist anywhere then? This is a commonly held theory amongst many fans. Staxringold 21:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. The first and third links have persons unfamiliar with the series making this comparison, then being corrected by people that have actually seen all of the series. In the second link a person made the comparison, but after being chastised said "I was being slightly facetious." The fourth involved someone claiming Whedon plagiarized Outlaw Star, which I doubt a fan of Firefly would say seriously. The fifth mostly seemed to be people insulting the show, including comparisons to Outlaw Star, Trigun, and Cowboy Bebop. The sixth link seems to have involved persons who were not fans, and did not seem very familiar with the show. The seventh is a Wikipedia mirror. On the last page you linked to, the comparison was only made before the person watched the show, and I did check the other five pages of the thread to see if it was mentioned later. These links only show that a few persons on the internet that are unfamiliar with, uninterested in, or dislike the show have made comparisons to other Sci-Fi/Western shows like Outlaw Star, Trigun, and Cowboy Bebop, which does not justify this page's existence. Sethoeph 03:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I really think the speculation section of the main article is a bit too much. There is always speculation among science fiction fans. This show just wasn't big enough to have developed speculations that are significant to people who aren't fans. -Aranel (" Sarah ") 22:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems to be well sourced by Staxringold. It's on the edge, though. Sdedeo 22:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and Merge' with Firefly. -Senori 22:16, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * This was originally a section of Firefly (television series) that a few of us objected to. Some of us wanted it gone entirely, some suggested keeping it as a separate article. I, obviously, was one of the ones who wanted it entirely removed. There is already a section in that article that includes a comparison of Firefly to a few others shows, including Outlaw Star. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:20, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * No there isn't. What are you talking about? The only thing remotely like that is the link to this article I posted under Speculation to keep you guys happy. Staxringold 22:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Second paragraph in the Setting section. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:07, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. If we let articles like this pass, that would just set up precedent for more worthless comparison articles. At the very least, report it as something that many people believe, not "lookit! grass and pickles are green!" --Apostrophe 22:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, like Star Trek versus Star Wars Kappa 22:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Neither Firefly nor Outlaw Star is as popular or significant as either Star Trek or Star Wars. -Aranel (" Sarah ") 01:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Since when was popularity a factor in deciding on keeping an article? This is a often thought-of connection, as a seperate article it takes up no signifigant space, so what's wrong? Staxringold 02:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Accoding to WP:NOT, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." Personally, I think the connection is worth mentioning. I don't think it's necessary to explore it at great length. (These are not exactly brilliant deductions. They are in fact fairly obvious.) As an individual article I feel that it's more of a fan essay than an encyclopedia article. It would make a wonderful article on a fansite. Perhaps such an article (on a reputable, well-established fansite) would make a useful external link. I happen not to think it merits coverage as an encyclopedia article. You are welcome to disagree. -Aranel (" Sarah  ") 02:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It seems an interesting and well written entry on a theory--Firedrake 03:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * User's third edit. Zoe 04:15, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Firefly and add discussion about similarities with Galaxina, Oblivion (film), and Ice Pirates while you're at it. 23skidoo 05:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge. An interesting article about an interesting series.  Whats so wrong with it?  Ppe42 12:36, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - Comparisons are inherently unencyclopedic. --Apostrophe 19:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete until articles comparing George W. Bush and Hulk Hogan, Buttercups and the Jaguar E-Type and Doctor Who and the Hundred-Years War are created (and please do not create these articles). And on closer reading, it looks like original research. Proto t c 14:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. nn. Doctor Who and the Hundred Years' War, otoh.... Dottore So 18:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Both shows just follow the same mtyhical archetypes. Besides, half the article is just talking about how they're similar because they both have a scene with a girl in a box. Kuralyov 18:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is nothing wrong with articles about comparisons between different subjects. -- OldRight 20:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep The initial entry as it appeared on the main Firefly page was badly written, badly laid out and clearly biased. The current page as it stands is a good point of interest for people interested in the TV series (fans or otherwise) and is dramatically improved over its attrocious original form, if a touch overlong. 02:14, 27 August 2005 (BST) (non-registered user)
 * Delete, WP:NOR. -Sean Curtin 04:54, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep with the intention of leaving the door open to other comparisons, i.e. 'Firefly and X show', in the same (and at that time renamed) article. -Fang Aili 07:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * That only makes it worse. --Apostrophe 17:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Just because you don't like something, Apostrophe, doesn't mean it isn't worthy of mention. Firefly is a clear amalgamation of several genres, and is an incredibly popular cult favorite, so discussing it's base ingredients is not a bad thing. Staxringold 21:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Key word being "discussing". Wikipedia is not a venue for opinion, which this article strongly implies; the opinion being that there is some sort of connection between the two series. Otherwise, why create the article, besides to report on people's beliefs (which this article fails to do so)? Still otherwise, articles for the sake of comparsion are inane. George W. Bush and Willaim Clinton have netural-colored hair, were presidents at one time in their lives, have wives, wear suits, and lives/lived in the White House! Let's make a article that details every aspect of their lives that are the same! No. I can be swayed by the fact that it's believed by many people, but the article isn't written like that. --Apostrophe 04:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Ą
 * Cleanup. The comparison is well-known in fandom in a way that 'George Bush and Hulk Hogan' is not, and while in some literal sense it's original research, so is just about any popular culture article.  However, much of it is ridiculous.  There are genuine points of similarity between the series like the "space western" setting, the girl in a box, and the Chinese influence.  These are enough that people have noticed them--and then grasped at straws in their search for more.  Elements like a musclebound warrior and a mystic, which can be found in almost any series, are not reasonable as similarities between the two shows.  Ken Arromdee 21:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep with the note that a merge would be my second choice Darthdavid
 * Delete. Most of the compasisons are downright ridiculous. Yes, let's compare a smart kid with a warrior woman who can kill you with her pinky. Let's compare a irritable catgirl who was an actual ambassador to a high-class prostitute sarcastically called 'Ambassador' in one episode by the captain who disrespects her profession. And whoever suggested that Mal and Kaylee have an adversarial relationship clearly only ever saw the episode Shindig--and only half of it at that. Would you keep up a page that compares Lost to Gilligan's Isle because they both involve people stranded on an island?
 * Did you bother to read the page's history? Because if you did you'd see that was vadalism by some random guy, not the original article that's being voted on. Staxringold 03:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * User:Staxringold removed this comment. I know why you did (because it's a comment on a version of the article that is no longer applicable), but we don't remove others' comments in general because it's poor form.  Besides, this was the user's first contribution, the vote itself is unlikely to be taken into consideration.  R ADICAL B ENDER  &#9733;  18:25, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * All right, I thought all votes were counted (so I was afraid a quick review of votes would miss that this vote was wholly unapplicable) Staxringold 20:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep for the refurbished article is no original research according to whats said on original research: "In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims that are easily verifiable by any reasonable adult, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources." I have to note, that I found this page only because i was interested in the article (as a firefly fan, searching for crossreferences) and it gave useful knowledge to me. It says in which points the two shows in question have things in common. Just stating facts resulting from the original film material (primary source), nothing more nothing less. Offering facts to the user i thought is the aim wikipedia has. Crossreferencing between entrys is a thing lacking as much as it's necessary to get a view on a topic in its whole width when you doing a research via wikipedia (I'am not speaking of linking from Lincoln to every other "President of USA"-Entry). Linking to similar things is the lowest level of crossreferencing. Declaring on what facts a crossreference is build on is a true help when you wan't to find out about the value of a crossreference. As I saw the crossreferences on Firefly article to other shows, I asked me why are they crossreferenced and where are the relations. This article gave me the understanding of that. So besides from passing the wikipedia guidelines on original research, this article was a chance of getting the knowledge (not an speculation) on which facts the crossreference of Firefly and Outlaw Star (I heard of before) is based on.
 * User's only edit. --Apostrophe 05:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is not hard to draw comparisons between stories by selectively taking generalized aspects of the plot or characters. Last night I read a comparison between the Lion King and Star Wars that was more convincing than this. Whilst it can be fun and entertaining coming up with them, such comparisons do not make for good encyclopedia articles. Sethoeph 22:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Proto. There's nothing particularly revelatory here, and neither series is as notable as any of the other (also borderline) comparison articles. This is cruft. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 23:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable comparison. —Cleared as filed. 03:33, August 31, 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.