Wikipedia:Featured article review/Spoo/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 18:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Review commentary

 * ''Messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Babylon 5.

This article about a fictional foodstuff from Babylon 5 fails as a featured article.


 * It uses fansites, forums and usenet postings as sources. Many of these are from the creator of the show, and some may regard them as canonical. But is the existing 'backstory' of spoo still valid, or was it just a joke for the forums? How authoritative are forum posts anyway?


 * An in-universe perspective; no distinction between whimsical 'information' provided by J. Michael Straczynski on forums and stuff taken direct from the show.


 * The out-of-universe importance of the term 'spoo' is not convincingly demonstrated. Again, forum posts and the like are used. Comes close to neologism usage tracking with stuff like 'first recorded use on Usenet' and 'mentioned in Frank Zappa's biography'.

See also Featured article candidates/Spoo/archive1 and Featured article removal candidates/Spoo

-- Nydas (Talk) 12:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As the primary author of the article and the one who brought it to FAC and through FARC, I should have been contacted, no? Also, there is no indication of what "FA criterion/criteria that are at issue."  I offer a point by point rebuttal nevertheless:


 * "It uses fansites, forums and usenet postings as sources..." The way you phrased that, you infer that many fan sites are used as references or that fan produced content comprises some of the sources, and this is just not the case - indeed, there is not a single non-archival fan site in any of the provided references. There are many USENET posts and the like, however these posts are not originating from fans, but from noted award-winning writer/producer/director J. Michael Straczynski, the show's creator, executive producer, and primary writer. The pioneering USENET/Internet posts by Straczynski are verifiable and legit, and have had significant impact on the franchise, and on the way the internet is used to market to fans (for more, please read Internet marketing and fan influence on Babylon 5, rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated, J. Michael Straczynski, and The Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5).  In addition to simple interaction, Straczynski used his involvement with fans online to chronicle the production of the series, but also to answer questions from fans about story elements, which included everything to trivial backstory, to the post-series fate of major characters, to the whimsical, brilliant, and infamous "Spoo Post" detailing the specifics of the bizarre creature and food product.  Upon even a cursory inspection, the authority of the posts is without question, the significance of the references without question.    Indeed, because of the unique authority of the messages, quite a bit has been written about this article and the unique (at the time) references since its featuring in 2005.


 * I don't what you mean by 'non-archival fan site'. The fansite used is the lurker's guide, used to source fan speculation about the supposed volatility of the spoo market. Using flowery terms like 'pioneering' and 'brilliant' does not change the fact that the source of this information is below normal standards for verifiability. It's fairly common for creators of fiction to interact with their fans online, but their posts are seldom used as sources for Wikipedia. If they've got anything important to say, they put on their official site or published supplementary material. Straczynski doesn't do this, so it's dubious as how important or reliable this is. It's the online equivalent of questions answered at a fan convention or a conversation in a bar. You seem to think that because it was 'pioneering' and special, we should lower the bar to accomodate it.-- Nydas (Talk) 16:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "the lurker's guide" as you put it (actually The Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5) is a website that was acknowledged by Straczynski on the Babylon 5 DVDs for their contributions to Babylon 5 fandom.
 * "It's fairly common for creators of fiction to interact with their fans online, but their posts are seldom used as sources for Wikipedia." At the time that Straczynski was making his Babylon 5 postings (1991 and on), it was far from common for creators to interact with fans online. Indeed, Straczynski pioneered the practice.  But that is neither here nor there. "If they've got anything important to say, they put on their official site or published supplementary material."  Straczynski has intentionally chosen to NOT have an official website (the closest being a commercial website for his scripts), instead choosing to interact with fans through other means.  That he makes the statements on USENET rather than a personal website is not relevant to the verifiability... he made a statement, there are copious links to those statements, it is a known fact that he made the statements, there is no argument.  To say that it does not meet verifiability standards is to say so in ignorance of the facts; its a spurious argument that was soundly rejected the last time (FARC). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 17:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Plenty of Babylon 5 supplementary books have been published, particularly The A-Z Guide to Babylon 5. Why can spoo not be sourced from these?-- Nydas (Talk) 18:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Because Straczynski chose to reveal the information online, in more immediate form than in books, directly to the fans. The A-Z Guides simply gathered information seen in the episodes, with some behind-the-scenes info, while (on the internets) Straczynski gave direct day-by-day behind-the-scenes commentary and direct answers to fans' questions on aspects of specific episodes or arcs or characters or back stories, specific esoterica not covered by the narrowly generalized official guides.  It seems irrational to reject verifiable sources because the source himself was ahead of his time by using the internet, and went to the revolutionary and unusual step of directly dealing with the fans.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 12:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Isn't this special pleading? If JK Rowling revealed a whimsical backstory about Butterbeer on some fan forum, would it admissable as a source for a featured article? I very much doubt it.-- Nydas (Talk) 18:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you were certain that it really was JK Rowling, why not? I do not understand why you are arguing so hard against this article's FA status. You are talking in circles. The USENET references are legit. --Fang Aili talk 18:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Because (despite the claims above) forums posts clearly made in jest are not an authoritative source of a canonical 'information'. Are we going to start taking every gag cracked by a creator of fiction and turn it into the backbone of a featured article?-- Nydas (Talk) 20:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In jest? According to whom? It's decidedly whimsical, but I have never encountered a Babylon 5 fan (or anyone else remotely familiar with the subject) who considers the Spoo Post to be a throwaway post "in jest," because the humorous tone of the post (and the story-factual content) is well in-line with Spoo's on-screen mentions and uses directly in the series. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 20:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So it's authoritative because fans say it is? If you think we're going in circles, you could always address my other points, particularly the article's dual topics on spoo as a fictional foodstuff and spoo as a neologism.-- Nydas (Talk) 09:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In your second bullet, you state there is "...no distinction between whimsical 'information' provided by J. Michael Straczynski on forums and stuff taken direct from the show." Oh, my, oh my... please bother to follow the references... each and every statement that warrants a reference goes to a very specific cite, and the cite clearly states the source, be it information taken from one of the series episodes, a website, a book, or information directly from Straczynski.  Really, it couldn't be clearer, and perhaps this was another oversight on the part of the nominator.


 * It should be made explicit in the article body that the vast bulk of the information is gleaned from the creator's internet posts, not from the show itself. Such information is crucial to an out-of-universe understanding of spoo, hiding it in the references is not good enough. For example: In Babylon 5, spoo, the creature, is regarded with contempt by most of the sentient species that have encountered it; this is partly because of its extreme ugliness as a species - tiny, pasty, mealworm-like creatures - and partly because of the difficulty encountered in cultivating the food, in particular, a "sighing problem" sounds like it is from the show when it's largely from Internet posts.-- Nydas (Talk) 16:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * All of the statements are quite clearly sourced. In fact it is very clear.  If anyone wants to know which bit of information comes from where, simply click the footnote and you can easily follow.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 17:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Users should not have to click links to find out if the 'sighing problem' is from the show or from Internet posts. The difference is critical to the understanding of the subject.-- Nydas (Talk) 18:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Finally, after repeating (flawed) arguments on the sources (see my points above) you claim "...The out-of-universe importance of the term 'spoo' is not convincingly demonstrated." Again, the delineation is very clear.  Indeed, Spoo has been long held to be an ideal example of having the proper balance of in-universe and behind-the-scenes information: it's been cited in FACs, AFDs, and Peer Reviews (really, a bit much to list here, so follow the Whatlinkshere for the article for more), and was listed as a prime example of how articles on fictional subjects should be written at Manual of Style (writing about fiction), or it was until you removed it.


 * You're dodging my point. Instead of saying it's long been held up as an ideal article, say why it's so good. Even if you think Internet posts are reliable sources for in-universe info, they most certainly are not for out-of-universe stuff. Where is the source for the claim that the term "spoo" has been creeping into popular culture since the 1970s?


 * I've made a fairly clear case as to the article's fitness as a FA, and for your question, its all in the links. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 17:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * A single use of the word in a comic from 1971 does not prove anything, see WP:NEO.-- Nydas (Talk) 18:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Trawling the Internet for usages is not evidence; there needs to be published information about the word itself, as specified by WP:NEO. Also, this information is about the word 'spoo', not the fictional foodstuff 'spoo' and should arguably be in a different article, or moved to Wiktionary.-- Nydas (Talk) 16:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've long followed people's commentary on the article, and at times it has been a lightening rod. For as many feel that it is a prime example of the potential of Wikipedia, there are just as many who disagree that an article on such an esoteric subject should even be allowed.  But any subject deserving of an article is deserving of a featured article.  This article meets all the criteria, and the arguments put forth above were used in the FARC from last year (just prior to the article appearing on the Main Page) - a FARC that failed by an overwhelming consensus, indeed a FARC that was decided by Raul at a time that I was coincidentally (unofficially) in charge of Featured Article Removal.  The article has changed little since then (it is possibly the most stable FA we have), and contrary to Featured Article Criteria overcoming an older FA, the widely held standards for inclusion of certain primary references (such as notable statements by individuals in forums or Blogs) has caught up with the standards established by this article and others like it.  Again, this article meets the criteria, and is not deserving of removal.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 14:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

On the issue of criterion 1c (which does appear to be the only criterion at issue), I note that two of the links: http://daytrading.about.com/library/jargon/bl_spoo.htm (18) and http://www.babylonpark.com/video-archive.htm (21) don't work. And I can't find "spoo" at http://boards.theforce.net/EU_Community/b10194/7432408/p2 (20). Can you update, replace or delete? Also is the author of the Frank Zappa book himself? Perhaps, you could just make that clear in the ref? Thanks, DrKiernan 15:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Zappa is the co-author (http://www.amazon.com/Real-Frank-Zappa-Book/dp/0671705725). For reference 20, for some reason the mention moved a page in the thread, strangely. The link is actually here: http://boards.theforce.net/eu_community/b10194/7432408/p3.  For reference 21, the website seems to have removed its archive, but luckily the specific short film mentioned as part of the reference is linked directly on the main page of the main website at http://www.babylonpark.com/ (and, they actually made a T-shirt out of that!).  And I have found multiple uses for Spoo in relation to the S&P 500.  I will integrate these changes shortly.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 15:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that covers all of my comments. Like qp, I think the article is OK as it stands. DrKiernan 16:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's a pretty good article. The only thing I would suggest is that the reference formatting be tidied up, so that we don't have raw urls.


 * Reading the article, I noted that the distinction between the fictional world and the frame of the article was repeatedly inserted to avoid in-universe writing. I also felt that the article distinguishes between Spoo's presence in the programme and its further life online and in the comments of the creator.


 * As far as online references are concerned, we should distinguish between what is appropriate for, say, a history article, and what is appropriate for subject matter of this sort. Wikipedia policy provides for programmes and creators to be cited as sources for themselves in the absence of more traditional sources; and so I feel that this article, odd though it is, fits the criteria.


 * On notability, we must presume that since this was part of a popular show and the subject of much talk online, it meets that criteria. We shouldn't be snobby about it. I suspect far more people would sign up for a Spoo conference than for one about Anglo-Saxon burial rites.

qp10qp 15:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

How do we know it was the subject of much talk online? There aren't any sources, just usage tracking.-- Nydas (Talk) 16:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep featured Comment. I do not see a basis for the nominator's assertions. I have a few suggestions for improvement, however: I'd like to see a few inline citations in the intro, and I'd like to know more about why "Stock and bond day traders have begun to use spoo in reference to S&P 500 futures." There's just that one line about it, as well as the mention in the intro, but nothing else. Overall, I love this article and I get a little thrill every time I remember it's featured and was a featured article of the day. Thanks for all your hard work on it, Jeffrey O. --Fang Aili talk 18:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep or Remove are not declared during article review; please see the instructions at WP:FAR. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 13:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What instructions? I don't see anything about "how to comment" on that page. --Fang Aili talk 13:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh nevermind, it's irrelevent. My views are clear. --Fang Aili talk 13:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment The fair use rationales for the non-free images are terrible. They don't actually explain why the images can be used, they just claim that the images are being used appropriately. Jay32183 23:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I agree, the fair use rationales were quite awful, and I apologize. (I wrote them nearly two years ago, long before we had anything resembling properly written explanations of why things should be considered fair use.)  I have gone through and provided detailed rationales and information for each of the images, and the situation is now resolved.  Thanks.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 10:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep or Remove are not declared during article review; please see the instructions at WP:FAR. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Comment - This one has been reviewed and not much has changed since then or the nomination. Dalf | Talk 11:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: Although he was in support of the article, Qp10qp did have concerns with the use of raw URLs in the somewhat untidy reference formatting. I have fixed that issue, and the references look much better.  Thanks for the suggestion! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 12:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concerns are reference quality (1c), focus (4). Marskell 08:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I think people are happy with this. Moving it down to get straight kp or rm comments. Marskell 08:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Cleanup needed. There are external jumps in the text; there's a strange section called "Additional references" which is not a standard appendix (see WP:LAYOUT) and appears to be a listy part of the article that should be incorporated as prose, and the citations aren't formatted (see WP:CITE/ES). Some of the section headings might benefit from WP:MSH tweaking to avoid repeat words. There's also a 425px image in the lead (infoboxes are capped, I think, at 300px; see WP:MOS on image size). There is incorrect use of dashes and hyphens throughout.  Common words (like cookbook) should be delinked per WP:MOSLINK, WP:CONTEXT.  Quotes are incorrectly italicized, see WP:ITALICS. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've prose-ified the horribly named "Additional References" section, reduced the lead image size to 300px, de-italicized the JMS quote, de-linked common words, and cut down one of the headers. Diff.  As far as dash/hyphen issue, I haven't fixed that only because WP:DASH confuses the hell out of me, and I'd appreciate some assistance from someone familiar with proper hyphenation.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 20:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll do some dash and ref cleanup to help get you started. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed the external jump; it was a dead link, so that text may need to be modified. I left an inline query.  I left several other inline queries where dates and other info didn't seem to match the source. I fixed the dashes.  I left sample edits of the kind of info missing on citations.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. I applied the fixes noted, verified the remaining external links, and hid the note on computer programming (as the company appears to no longer produce the software). Diff. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 04:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and keep featured in case my feelings on the matter were not abundantly clear. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 20:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Remove. My points about the article's dual focus have not been addressed. One half deals with the fictional food, the other deals with the word. The article tries to build an unwarranted relationship between the two, listing usages of the word 'spoo' (or vaguely similar words) in a way which WP:NEO clearly states is original research. Many of these are totally unrelated to the Babylon 5 foodstuff; the day trader jargon 'spoo' comes from an abbreviation of 'Standard & Poor's 500 futures'. The grand claim that spoo is 'seeping into popular culture' is unsourced.


 * As for the Babylon 5 component, I ask editors to consider whether an article relying heavily on Internet posts would be featured today. I cannot imagine a fictional food from RuneScape or Naruto being featured on the back of Internet posts from the creators.-- Nydas (Talk) 09:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I cannot imagine that this article, with the sourcing it uses, could be featured today. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comparing Straczynski's involvement in the Babylon 5 franchise both in an executive role & his nearly unprecedented creative control to the creators of nearly any other franchise is like comparing apples and caterpillars. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 17:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep featured. Like I said before. --Fang Aili talk 01:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I have no problem with either reference quality or focus. DrKiernan 09:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment, this paper needs citation info (like title, publisher, date etc.) " ... and cited by linguist Pamela Munro in a paper on 1980s collegiate slang at UCLA."  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed. The cite was left on my talk page ages ago, so I do not know why neither myself or the editor providing the fact added it to the article. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 16:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I do not see any compelling reason to remove this one. Not every FA has to be of earth shattering importance. Dalf | Talk 03:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep&mdash;not too bad on the whole; the prose could use a light copy-edit, but nothing serious is needed. The sourcing is one of those borderline, fundamental debates. &mdash; Deckiller 23:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What about the neologism tracking?-- Nydas (Talk) 07:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep featured. I don't think the problems discussed so far are serious. Anyone who came to Wikipedia to read an article on Spoo would be delighted to find this, which in my view supports its position as an example of Wikipedia's best. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't think that original research is serious? As it stands, one could add 'Spoo is also a surname' and 'Spoo is also a character in a Japanese kids show'  and attempt to tie these utterly unrelated meanings to the article.-- Nydas (Talk) 18:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Original research is serious but the article doesn't appear to have significant flaws in that regard; it's not building a thesis or introducing new arguments. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The thesis being built is that the word 'spoo' is used in popular culture, based on a grab bag of examples. It's also implied that Babylon 5 helped popularise it. The reader is not informed that 'spoo', as used by day traders, has no relationship with the fictional foodstuff.-- Nydas (Talk) 09:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That the word is used in popular culture isn't a thesis, and I disagree that the article implies the television show was central in popularizing it. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NEO states otherwise. There is no source for the word being used in popular culture, just a grab bag of (weak) examples which is synthesised into an original thesis. There are still chunks of misleading info like 'Since its advent and popularization in Babylon 5' in the 'current usage' section. Incidently, 'spoo space' gets 6 ghits, so perhaps the usage is not really current.-- Nydas (Talk) 19:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A Google Groups search returns roughly 1600 results, though. - EurekaLott 19:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * How many of those are 'current'? Most of them are from more than five years ago.-- Nydas (Talk) 09:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Remove. The article fails WP:FICTION miserably; it does not use one secondary source independent of the subject (except when discussing the spoo "separate from its fictional meaning", which doesn't even belong in this article). Bulbasaur was defeatured because it has similar sourcing problems. Some particular comments: The article calls one of the USENET postings "classic and hilarious"; it is up to reliable secondary sources to make that judgment. The article says that many fans have tried to make spoo, and even discusses common methods for making spoo, but all the reference says is that one fan presented Straczynski one dish they christened spoo. The "Commodity" section offers two interpretations—"mistake" or "intentional"—but only the "intentional" interpretation is sourced. The source for the "intentional" interpretation is a fan site, but we can ignore that for now because the site doesn't even claim that the 10-15 discrepancy was Straczynski's intention to begin with. The "Real-world etymology of the word" section is made up of trivia, most of which is irrelevant to Babylon 5. Surveying internet message boards and search engines to draw conclusions about word usage is original research. Keep in mind that everything in this article may be true, but Wikipedia is based on verifiability through reliable sources, not truth. Punctured Bicycle 10:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Remove, per Punctured Bicycle. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Featured, the article is well written, well sourced, well supported and makes for a fine FA. Jeffrey O Gustafson is right on the mark about Straczynski, the fans, and the release of information on the show through the internet and other fan outlets, including information on spoo.  Although I know it’s not WP:V from a WP:RS, I remember Spoo very well from my days working on the trading floor for a Wall Street Investment bank, and there were a number of traders who were B5 fans that enjoyed the B5/Spoo connection.  Several even showed up at office parties dressed as a B5 character with plates of Spoo…especially around Halloween. Dreadstar  †  01:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Remove as per Nydas and Punctured Bicycle. I'm far from convinced that semi-humourous Usenet posts, even by the sainted JMS, can be considered as reliable sources. Virtually the entire "Real-world etymology" section is irrelevant - a grab-bag of unrelated uses of a word similar to Spoo. There's very little in the article to demonstrate the out-of-universe importance of the topic. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Remove: Fan-related articles are fun and interesting and should be a part of the enyclopaedia. But the FA standards should be applied uniformly and this one unfortunately does not meet 1c. --RelHistBuff 15:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: As I've understood things previously (this article has been discussed before in terms of 1c) editors have argued that if USENET etc. are not used then no article would exist. It's those or nothing. Now, if it's common knowledge that the creator used USENET, I'm wondering if we can get a reliable source confirming the fact. Thus the specifics would still be sourced to the USENET archive but we would have a covering citation confirming that we should trust the dubious source. Can that be done? Also Punctured has some specific, actionable concerns that should be addressed. Marskell 14:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's honestly beyond me that anyone can doubt the verifiability of the USENET (etc) posts. I have met the man. And the last time I did (at the New York Comic Con), he is on a first name basis with people from rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated (what he calls the "JMS irregulars").  He has mentioned jmsnews.com in press interviews (I can probably dig out a link if really needed).  He's been interacting online with fans, unquestioned, since 1991.  To say that JMS posts stuff and interacts with fans online is like saying the sky is blue - no joke, no hyperbole, anyone remotely familiar with JMS and his works knows that he posts online, and if you regularly post to rastb5m and meet him in person, even money says he knows who you are.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 17:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Objections to the topic (i.e. "neologism tracking") do not seem to me to be actionable, and thus are not valid objections. The sourcing is reliable, if non-traditional, and this remains exhibit A for why rigid interpretation of sourcing guidelines is simply idiotic. While the balance between in and out-of-universe writing could be better, it looks like about a 50/50 split, which is high but not unacceptable. Phil Sandifer 17:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's actionable, like all original research. You remove it.-- Nydas (Talk) 17:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Note for whoever resolves this - It is absurd to claim that the Usenet posts are not reliable sources. J. Michael Straczynski's identity on Usenet has been confirmed, and any posts from him are known to come from him. People saying "Usenet is not reliable" are simply not understanding the situation for this article, and their comments are, simply, not useful. Phil Sandifer 19:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So if JK Rowling made a few whimsical posts on a fan forum detailing a humorous backstory for butterbeer, we could make a featured article from it?-- Nydas (Talk) 19:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a tired argument. Any subject deserving an article deserves a featured article. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 19:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There isn't an article for butterbeer, though.-- Nydas (Talk) 19:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So? Pick a relevant example, then.  My point stands.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 19:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It was an article, but got merged, even though it has the same potential as this one.-- Nydas (Talk) 23:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That seems immaterial - the sources are not a priori unreliable, as some are suggesting, and those suggesting the sources are necessarily unreliable because they are Usenet posts have, frankly, not looked at the situation closely enough for their judgment to matter. Phil Sandifer 21:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The sources are reliable about the nature of spoo, but not reliable enough to justify raising that nature to absolute canon, on the same level as the Earth-Minbari War. Fan say-so isn't enough.-- Nydas (Talk) 23:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Erm... I believe that the "JMS says so" policy of canon comes from him, not from fans. Phil Sandifer 01:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That is correct, to an extent. As noted above, the relationship between the creator (JMS) and the property (owned by Warner Bros) is unique.  Straczynski is the keeper of the canon, in part because he says so, and in part because the fans will not except anything else.  In an unrelated example to that effect, Mongoose, a book/comic/game publishing company specializing in licenses for pre-existing properties, obtained publishing rights for Babylon 5.  Warner Bros said it was "official" (which is technically correct).  Mongoose trumpeted it as official.... and canon, claiming it was JMS approved.  JMS said it was not canon, and that he was explicitly against it.  The backlash from fans was so great that Mongoose more or less abandoned the license.  JMS said, in essence, that anything not by him, or produced without his approval and oversight, is nothing more than fan fiction, regardless if it is officially licensed.  "JMS says so" is the policy of B5 canon, and the fans wouldn't accept anything less.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 09:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds like this article has POV problems as well. Since when was the content of articles dictated by fan concepts like 'keeper of the canon'?-- Nydas (Talk) 18:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * While it's vaguely touching to know that you're this unrelentingly dense in all debates you get involved in, questions of canonicity are pretty standard, at least, in Doctor Who and Star Trek articles. Though in the current version, I'm pretty sure there are no canon discussions. Phil Sandifer 18:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be better to let the reader to judge for themselves.-- Nydas (Talk) 20:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Straczynski's USENET postings are reliable enough. The main problem is that the article lacks secondary sources, independent of the subject, that assert the importance of the subject. I want to know why Babylon 5 ' s spoo is important outside of the mere 6 out of 110 episodes of Babylon 5 it appeared in, and outside of J. Michael Straczynski's personal recollections. The article lacks substantial real world content—critical and popular reception, development, cultural impact, etc. Any subject deserving an article deserves a featured article, but this subject doesn't appear to deserve a full article. Punctured Bicycle 01:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Remove Per 1b and 4. Article omits the necessary real world information and focuses too much on the fictional aspects. I would also note that there is potentially a strong case against this article if it were taken to AFD. Jay32183 01:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * More Comment I've made a pass at revising the article - renaming two sections and refocusing them to foreground the out-of-universe issues over plot trivia, and re-ordered another section so that it flows more chronologically. A bit of plot detail got lost, but I think the article still captures the silliness of spoo while foregrounding its out-of-universe material. I will note, I don't particularly think this was a vital revision, but it did mildly improve the article. Phil Sandifer 15:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.