Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Browncoat

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. Clear evidence has been cited both in the article and the discussion below that the topic meets

Browncoat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log

)

Strong delete, speedy per A7 if possible Tottally non-notble. I've never even heard of that tv program--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• cult following. Whilst I think it should be deleted I don't think it is a speedy candidate.[[Guest9999 (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply
  ]

• Keep Adequate notability and sourcing. 86.137.6.133 (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:*Note - The above is the

• You want my sig? Here you are: Colonel Warden (talk) 10:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment a source only requires depth if it's used to determine notability. If it's used to verify a single fact, that requirement is irrelevant. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply Sorry I may have phrased it badly, in the nomination what I meant was that the single
  notability and as such the topic of the article did not meet the criteria for inclusion (I was not trying to say that the source itself did not meet the criteria for inclusion). [[Guest9999 (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply
  ]

• Strong keep - non-notable fan movements don't provide the kind of pressure that leads major motion picture studios to fund feature films based on cancelled television programs. Notable, for all the same reasons that Trekkies are notable. --Orange Mike 07:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC) (self-identifying as a Browncoat, in the interests of full disclosure)[reply]

• Where are the
  reliable sources then? [[Guest9999 (talk) 11:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply
  ]

• Keep I do not often comment on this sort of article, but in this case it is clear that there is extensive content beyond the show itself. DGG (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, some examples of coverage by independent reliable sources would be nice. [[Guest9999 (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

• Delete . No reliable sources to establish notability. This article also seems like a
  Browncoat may become a redirect there if necessary). – sgeureka ^t•c 22:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as per Orange Mike. Edward321 (talk) 03:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of Science fiction & Fantasy-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong keep per points raised above, and established notability. (BTW, the only applicable "speedy" for this would be a "keep".) --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm surprised to find someone using the internet who hasn't had exposure to Browncoats. Other than Trekkers or Star Wars fans, they're the largest, most rabid and most annoying online fan base you'll ever see. So Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Areashands (talk • contribs) 11:03, 19 November 2007
• Keep with the requirement that all the lists of conventions, cruises, dances and other fancruft are culled. The article should be about the fictional and real world meaning of the term, period, end of story. Wikipedia is NOT for random collections of links.

--Boradis (talk) 03:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Boradis. The article should be cut down to the content that describes what Browncoats are without all the links. Also, the current lack of sources shouldn't be reason for a deletion. Whatever happened to finding sources before reaching for the delete button? --clpo13_(talk) 09:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - An actual movement of actual people with an actual effect on the world. There were a good number of press articles when the Serenity movie came out talking about the effect. Current stories include five in Google News from November 2007, and "about 100" for all dates. Articles about pop culture topics unfortunately tend to generate a more than ordinary number of unacceptable sources, but the Weekly Standard, SF Chronicle, Calgary Sun, CNET News.com, Wired News, Philadelphia Inquirer, Kansas City Star, St Paul Pioneer Press, Oregonian, and others are all RS. --Lquilter (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of those Google news stories are actually about browncoats, they are about upcoming shows and potential sequels, they could probably be used to source information in the article but don't establish

notability. [[Guest9999 (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply

]

• Keep - I was not a major fan of this show, but I have seen this term used in everyday life and even on some t-shirts I have seen. 24.164.181.99 (talk) 06:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 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) have been responsible for an annual charity showing at cities around the world.Shsilver (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the original call for deletion was misguided under the idea that the term was only applied to a faction in the series. Had [[Guest9999 actually read the entry instead of simply nominated it for deletion, he would have seen that this was not a fictional reference, but a reference to a grouping of fans.Shsilver (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did say in the nomination that some of the article could be merged into Firefly (TV series)#Fandom - specifically relating to the grouping of fans. [[Guest9999 (talk) 23:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

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.