Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reaver (Firefly) (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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

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

All sources are primary. No out-of-universe notability established, no secondary sources found. Previous AFD from 2009 withdrawn due to what appear to be unreliable sources and WP:ILIKEIT !votes. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:34, 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; 05:54, 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; 05:54, 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; 05:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Both Firefly (TV series) and Serenity (film) are notable and have reasonably long articles. Since Reavers play an important part in both the TV series and film, it makes sense to move this content to its own page rather than duplicating it in the two already lengthy articles. CodeTheorist (talk) 06:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Which does nothing about its notability. "The page is too big" is not an excuse to split off an article if the split-off content is entirely in-universe, unsourced cruft. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 07:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Much like your misguided nomination of Browncoat, this is a flawed nomination which does not appear to have resulted from any effort to ascertain the notability of the topic. Unlike Browncoat, the Reavers are not as ingrained into the pop-culture dictionary, but they are certainly quite analyzed by those who look at such things: The Psychology of Joss Whedon, a paper at Slayage, The Existential Joss Whedon, and Finding Serenity (The last is snippet view only, but I have the book in case you want me to quote it at more length) So, once again, we have a fatally flawed nomination by an editor who has been gently chided by the community to be more careful with such things... and yet, appears to have not listened. Jclemens (talk) 07:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This fictional element is not notable independently from the show, so in order to make it a spinout topic for length, someone would have to gather, write and add the material to wikipedia. With Firefly no longer on the air, I doubt anyone's up to doing this. – sgeureka t•c 08:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please cite policy or guideline support for your assertion. "Independence" in discussions of notability generally refers to the sources being editorially independent, not the coverage of a fictional element being independent from the fictional work in which it appears.  c.f. Articles for deletion/Batman's utility belt. Jclemens (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As advised per WP:N (guideline), "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." Reavers (Firefly) is nearly 100% related (i.e. 0% independent) to Firefly, as it doesn't transcend it. There's also WP:NOTINHERITED (essay) highlighting why a wall of keep doesn't help here.– sgeureka t•c 08:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So you admit that you're using "independent" in a manner completely independent from the requirement that sourcing be reliable, independent sources? That's fine.  Just wouldn't want a keyword-scanning admin to mistake your novel interpretation, which seems to entirely coincidentally use the same words as an actually policy-supported deletion reason, for that policy-supported deletion reason. Jclemens (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Requires merging, whether to the movie, the DVD series, or too a single page that covers both. "Reavers have not appeared in many mainstream TV shows, mostly because Firefly was taken off the air by FOX after only 14 episodes. It remains a popular show in SyFy reruns, on YouTube, and in sales of the DVD of the series and the movie Serenity. However, some small communities on the internet have used Reavers in their media." is blatant OR.  The authors need to be directed to WP:WAF.  Removing the OR, and requiring out-of-universe sourced material will dramatically reduce the content.  No need to delete the history, but it is very likely that this will never be more than a redirect.  The topic is no more than a literal tool.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Let's face it, although Firefly was great, it ran for just ~ 14 eps and had the Reavers in maybe 3 episodes; none of its fictional elements (including Reavers) transcends the show, therefore I doubt this topic passes WP:Notability in itself. As for a spinout article, this article has ONE sentence on production that maybe salvageable for the movie article, but the rest is WP:IN-UNIVERSE information, plot (WP:NOT), and WP:Original research based on observation of the plot, so even with stubbification, there should be no stand-alone article per WP:AVOIDSPLIT. – sgeureka t•c 08:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your doubts seem to be based upon speculation rather than evidence. A brief search of the sources soon turns critical commentary about the role of the reavers as the Indians in the Space Western setting. Warden (talk) 10:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My doubts are based on the state of the article and common sense after 5 years' wiki-work on fiction articles. A fictional element that appears in two episodes of a short-lived TV show and a movie ? If that was commonly notable, we'd practicly never AfD a fictional element for nonnotability. – sgeureka t•c 08:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * They are also featured in their comics, as well as in the book Finding Serenity. Not sure if they are in the role playing game or not.   D r e a m Focus  10:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep The nomination claims that all sources are primary and out-of universe. These claims seem to be false in that the article contains a section about the design of this character which is sourced to some discussion of the conception and development of this character by various parties.  Note that this nomination is part of a little deletion spree in which three articles were nominated in as many minutes.  Note also that there seems to have been no prior activity by the nominator for this topic - no editing, tagging or talk page discussion.  One minute seems to be insufficient time for the nominator to read and accurately digest the contents of such an article, never mind all the steps advised by WP:BEFORE. Warden (talk) 09:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A real-world section consisting of one line (at the point of nomination, it was one sentence of 17 words from the creator as a primary source) hardly makes the nom's point moot. – sgeureka t•c
 * It demonstrates that the nomination is false and confirms that almost no time was spent upon it. It is our policy that repeat nominations may be disruptive and that editors may be blocked for this.  Warden (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and integrate the scholarly sources cited by Jclemens. --BDD (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: the Slayage paper and Finding Serenity provided by Jclemens are enough to pass WP:GNG as significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. —Torchiest talkedits 16:03, 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)
 * I added three for now, but perhaps someone else can pull more info from them or other sources. —Torchiest talkedits 16:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per above. TBrandley 18:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per Jclemens and Warden and ban Ten Pound Hammer from AFD. CallawayRox (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. He is as ridiculous in his pointless AFD nominations as ever.   D r e a m Focus  19:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Ample coverage has been found of them.  D r e a m Focus  19:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I've almost AfDed this myself, as it is indeed unsourced except through in-world sources. This is also a long running dispute (ANI etc) between TPH and myself - he has deleted whole categories of notable UK fiction (Redwall, Judge Dredd, Mortal Engines) for being too in-universe in their sourcing. When asked why he didn't act similarly against DC or Marvel topics, he remained silent. So at one level I'm happy to see him going after US titles now as well.
 * That said though, I still disagree with his whole haste to delete articles on fairly major topics within popular and widely discussed and notable series. Yes, we need further sourcing and we should work towards that. Yet deleting an article like this over such a point flies right in the face of WP:PRESERVE. And yet again, it's TPH who's calling for it. This is why I'd not only keep this article, it's why I'd still like to see community censure and maybe even a topic ban of TPH being "as ridiculous in his pointless AFD nominations as ever". Andy Dingley (talk) 10:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Snowball Keep per the above. A highly noteable and important topic. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This is a very notable topic and has ample coverage, despite its issues. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 20:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is suitably referenced and describes a feature of both the Firefly series and central feature of the Serenity film.  Copying this content into both articles would result in oversize pages and unnecessary duplication. DiverScout (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge: I know it may seem like a lost cause, because of the sheer volume of "keep" !votes. But Wikipedia is not a democracy, and AFD is WP:NOTAVOTE. All but two of the keep comments here are "per above" and/or bald assertions that this is notable without any reliable evidence to WP:verify notability. If we want to evaluate whether this meets the general notability guideline, we need to dig deeper than the plot recaps and in-universe details, and examine what we ACTUALLY have in the way of sourced information:
 * Verifying that Joss Whedon and Bernie Wrightson created them. (A fact that is easily covered in the main series article.)
 * The analogy that if Firefly is a Western, Reavers are "Injuns".
 * A bunch of in-universe detail and plot recap. (Nothing to WP:verify notability.)
 * That's a real lack of significant coverage if I saw it. So... can we establish notability from any of the sources mentioned by User:Jclemens?
 * Used a few times in a 200 page book, every time to recap the series plot.
 * Used in a few essays, to recap the series plot. (Keeping in mind that google books has limited view.)
 * Used once in a 200 page book to recap the series plot.
 * Wikipedia articles are WP:NOT summaries. There has to be some information to WP:verify notability, a reliable third party who can explain why this is important, and not just a reliable third party who happened to mention them while recapping the plot. It's very telling that the reception section of this article only says "Reavers have not appeared in many mainstream TV shows, mostly because Firefly was taken off the air by FOX after only 14 episodes," which should speak volumes about the lack of notability of this phenomenon outside the series itself. The last thing I'll add is that we already have an excellent plot summary at Serenity (film), if anyone sees any value of sourcing the few statements about Reavers to the sources found by JClemens. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To quote from the WP:GNG "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". Unless you're arguing that 1) three or more of the four sources I've already found are so trivial as to not support independent notability, and 2) you have searched for, and failed to find, other sources that would be non-trivial, independent reliable sources, your argument isn't particularly policy-based either--at least, any administrator who relied on it to close against numerical consensus would likely find himself hauled before DRV and chastised for supervoting when so many of your peers have found these sources sufficient. Jclemens (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, that's exactly what I'm arguing. As you summarized from my position, the four sources you've found aren't sufficient to support notability, and I went to the trouble of probing further and encountered the same problems. There's lots of sources about the series itself that might offer a trivial mention of the Reavers. But very little to offer additional information about the Reavers specifically. The trivial mentions are always in the context of a plot summary (which is what Wikipedia is WP:NOT), and nothing to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So let me get this straight: in the world according to Shooterwalker, just because Wikipedia articles on fictional topics are not to be solely plot summaries (which is what WP:NOT actually says), then WP:RSes which mention a topic in the context of their plot summary are inappropriate sources to use to reference fictional element articles on Wikipedia that are themselves not solely plot summaries? If so, that's both convoluted and wrong. Want another source?  Here's a senior thesis from Liberty University of all places. How about a Syllabus covering Firefly/Serenity, BSG, and Lost, which includes an assignment specifically on Reavers? I can keep this up all day--the more you insist that you're looking for sources and not finding them, the more hollow your assertions ring--but I don't have to, because the consensus of Wikipedia editors expressed above is that what I've found already demonstrates notability sufficiently well. Jclemens (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I added the information about Reavers being compared to Indians in old westerns. It's not a lot of information in the article, but the source is quite a bit more in depth than that.  The coverage the source provides is significant; in fact, the entire essay is about Reavers.  I just added one sentence about it to satisfy the request to add the new sources into the article.  There is quite a bit more than can be mined from that essay and added to the article.  Same with the Finding Serenity source.  I only added a little bit as a way to actually cite the source, but there's more where that came from. —Torchiest talkedits 01:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not just me, JClemens. And it's actually quite simple. If you don't have any independent sources that cover any substantial out-of-universe information, then how are you supposed to write something that's more than just a plot summary (see also WP:NOT)? How does recapping the plot do anything to WP:verify notability? The easiest way to tell if a fictional spinoff article is notable is to go to the reception section, and see what verified facts are there. Right now, there's nothing. To be fair, Torchiest has at least found the right type of source with the right type of information, but it's so trivial (one source makes the obvious analysis that "the Reaver mythology is different in the film versus the movie") that it does not meet the WP:GNG (see WP:TRIVIALMENTION). I've always found you to be pretty reasonable, JClemens, so if you want to keep saying that this topic is notable (and I making this request in the kindest and most matter of fact way possible) please WP:PROVEIT. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, on that source, Finding Serenity, there is a lot more content. Jclemens has the book, and can pull more information from the source into the article.  I only added that bit because it's the only part I felt I could add from the google books preview. —Torchiest talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 02:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I did. At least, I provided enough sources that a clear consensus of the above editors (consensus needn't be unanimous, as we all know) agree that the article should be kept.  Why should I do other WP:BEFORE work when I wasn't the one who nominated the article for deletion in the first place? Jclemens (talk) 02:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree that you have a consensus. Someone nominated this for AFD, and I see a policy-based argument from sgeureka and myself. I see you and to some extent, Torchiest (and now Braincricket) offering a rationale, but a real lack of sources to support that rationale. But let's just say the pile-on votes count as a consensus. If that's true, then why are you wasting your time trying to convince me? Sincerely, the easiest way to resolve this would be to go through that book that apparently you only have access to, and write a little "reception" section cited to that book. I'm not convinced it's possible, considering what I've seen from the low quality of the other sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing a coherent policy-based argument from Shooterwalker as, like the nominator, he can't even decide whether the topic should be deleted or merged. Shooterwalker's main contribution to the debate seems to be to assert that such articles require a reception section and that's not based upon any policy that I'm aware of.  And sgeureka's position is based upon the current state of the article and so is directly contrary to our policy that articles may be imperfect.


 * As for sources, none of the nay-sayers seem to have done a damn thing to find any; they just rubbish anything and everything that's put before them per WP:IDHT. Now, I was well satisfied with what we could see online but recently popped in to the local Forbidden Planet to pick up the first issue of  Hit-Girl.  She's inspirational as her dad taught her to be "self-sufficient in an age when all the whiners were looking for a handout or someone else to blame."  So, I checked out the cult TV shelves where there were several substantial books about Firefly.  One of these is Investigating Firefly and Serenity.  That contains an entire chapter about the reavers, entitled Reavers and Redskins: Creating the Frontier Savage.  This is deep critical analysis of a sort which one rarely finds for fictional elements and its existence utterly destroys the case of the nay-sayers.


 * Now, what's interesting is that this doesn't turn up when one does a Google books search &mdash; presumably Google hasn't scanned this work. This demonstrates that such Google searches are not the last word and so leeway should be allowed for such topics so that proper research into books and journals can be done.  There is never a case for deletion in such cases because we always have the option to merge into the parent topic - the main article about the overall work.  AFD nominations for spinoffs of this kind should therefore be speedily closed so that ordinary research, editing and talk page discussion may be used over time, as we do for most other detailed topics.


 * Warden (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So as not to double count anything, I believe that the "Reavers and Redskins" chapter was what specifically mentioned Reavers in the syllabus I posted above. So, we have that chapter, and then an accredited, college-level English class referencing it, which would support the reliability of the source, but not count as two separate references towards notability, in my mind. Jclemens (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Warden, please comment about the content, not other editors. Saying I haven't done a damn thing when I've reviewed plenty of sources on this topic, or accusing me of playing WP:IDHT when I'm having a perfectly reasonable discussion with JClemens. There's a long-standing policy at WP:NOT asking that articles about fictional topics cover their reception and significance, and not just plot summaries. I've seen lots of sources that recap the plot. I haven't seen any sources that explain the reception of the Reavers. One source is at least of the right kind: I'm not sure that the "online international journal of Buffy studies" is particularly reliable, but for the sake of proving a point, let's pretend that it is. "Reavers and Redskins" makes a pretty obvious analysis that Serenity is a space western, and so Reavers are the "Injuns". Unfortunately, half the essay is about how Indians have been racially stereotyped in other fiction, and the psychological effect of a "schema". The rest is plot recap, intermixed with stating the same thesis over and over. I'd just like more, is all. We both agree: the sources aren't in the article. You're saying there's potential and given some time, it can be improved. I'm asking you guys to WP:PROVEIT. Not to bring it up to good article status. But just to write that little reception section. If this book that JClemens has is full of information, why is it so hard to just put it in? I'm not asking for anything that hasn't been used to save other articles from deletion. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So you expect editors who see that an article has notability to take a break from whatever other important Wikipedia work they're doing (Finalizing my support for the current slate of CU and OS candidates, in my case) to rush out and add stuff to the article? Sorry, but retention is based on the encyclopedic potential of articles, not their current state.  Anyone can add anything if they want, and I would LOVE to have the time to add everything to everywhere I could.  I don't. But that's OK, because finding that independent RS'es exist is sufficient. Jclemens (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't like to add to articles in such cases because TPH then preens himself in an obnoxious manner, effectively claiming the credit for the improvement even though he didn't do a stroke of work. If TPH wants sources adding or SW wants a reception section then they should do this work themselves per sofixit rather than abusing AFD to bully other editors into doing the work for them.  Warden (talk) 10:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Warden, this is the last time I'm going to ask you to comment on the content, not the contributor. I'm not trying to avoid work, I'm not trying to bully anyone, I'm not trying to take credit, and I'm not trying to abuse AFD. Stop bringing those accusations into it. The reason I can't "fix it" is because all the sources I've found are inadequate. JClemens has a offline source that he believes can fix it, but based on what I've seen in every other source, I just don't believe that sufficient coverage is lurking in the one place that I can't look. What adds to this belief, for me, is that people have known the article has existed in this defective state for several years, and no one does anything about it, even when legitimate issues are pointed out. Now, I believe in good faith that JClemens is busy, and there's way too much work to do on Wikipedia to put out every fire. But the longer the article sits in this state without these supposedly easy fixes, the less that people are going to believe in its WP:POTENTIAL to be fixed. Again, you can shout from the highest mountain that we have the WP:POTENTIAL to become astronauts, but after looking into it myself and finding zero action from anyone else, it's entirely reasonable to conclude that day will never come. Hence suggesting deletion. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. The independent sources provided by JClemens show that there's enough significant coverage to meet the WP:GNG. The coverage in the honors thesis, Slayage paper, book, syllabus, and (apparently) Finding Serenity are more than just throw-away mentions in plot summaries. The article's in-universe perspective and its need for expansion are not good reasons for deletion. Wikipedia is in a state of becoming, so tag it with in-universe and let's get on with it. Braincricket (talk) 14:08, 7 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.