1172:
politicians spouse is mentioned in an article about the politician that does not make the spouse notable. In the same way if characters are mentioned in an article (or film or essay) about the tv series or other element of the tv series that does not make the character notable. Sources have emerged since the begining of the AfD which seem to mention the charcters in the context of the show, I was therefire only suggesting that it might be appropriate to move the information from the individual character articles into the article for the series. I still think the individual articles should be deleted as none of the information is sourced (or at least no sources are given on the pages) and nothing has been shown that establishes the notability of teh characters in their own right. Also I would seriously question whether a film made "by fans for fan" can truely be considered to be an independant source with the depth to establish notability. ]
1284:"As it is nobody has given a source about any of the characters mentioned - they have given the names of sources that are about the tv series" -- Rather inaccurate. I posted here three days ago that I had added a ref to the Inara article that dealt specifically with her. I also quoted another article that, from the Google Scholar excerpt, also seemed to be about specific characters, but I don't have access to the journal to verify that. So, please drop the "nobody has cited anything" argument, 'mkay? --
56:, and I am using my discretion to note that there is no consensus within this debate on which to base such an opinion. The argument with most merit in this debate has been that of merging. I would suggest that interested parties work together to achieve a consensus on the best way to present that information best fitting with our purpose that is contained within these articles, as no consensus to delete it has formed as yet. See
995:
series and/or movies were still likely to be continued I would say individual character articles could be justified easily enough, but I just don't think there's enough verifiable, notable information to really warrant it. I do agree that Mal and River probably do warrant independent articles, I agree with the nominator's decision not to include them in this. ~
870:
I mentioned the other stuff was that in previous nominations people have tried to give the popularity of a series as evidence of notability of its characters (e.g. Harry Potter 300,000,000 books sold) and I thought by showing that the series had not been popular (canceled aftre 1 season, box office flop) those arguements might not be made. ]
1528:("significant" in this context would mean at least 10-20, telling from experience, and depending on how indepth they are). The policy does not say how secondary information should be arranged, right, but neither article has a single paragraph of out-of-universe information to begin with. So, unless proven otherwise, they fail
1261:
I think then the question is do these sources have the depth required to establish notability - or since articles should be based around the information gained from reliable, independent sources - could these sources (supplemented with information from primary sources) be the basis for the content of
898:
to WP to remove a well written article of a character that a user may be looking for information on. Is the article on Jayne Cobb (Firefly) getting in the way of Jayne Cobb (cricket player)? Please explain again how deleting this article will ease
Knowledge's usability to the user. Perhaps there is a
869:
Sorry, I agree I did bog down the nomination with irelevant information (the tv show's and movie's lack of poularity) but I still feel the main point - which has still not really been adequately addressed - that the articles' lack any kind of reliable, independant sourcing was made clear. The reason
386:
I know the show and will admit that in terms of forming a small core of very dedicated fans it was successful. However in terms of broader appeal, longevity and comercial viability it was a failure - hence why it was cancelled after one season and not picked up by any other network and hence why the
248:
The movie made less money at the box office than it cost to make (about $ 39,000,000 compared to about $ 40,000,000) considering that theatres take a significant proportion of that (~40% ?) and the amount of money spent on publicity and advertising it is likely that the studio suffered a significant
1746:
Well, there's hardly a platoon, only articles for its main points, significantly improving our coverage over what one article would be able to do. And here's another thing that's mentioned surprisingly seldomly: the significance of a subject does not necessarily scale with how much there is to say,
1205:
I can't demand anything, this is a collaborative project. I have no problem if the same source deals with each character individually and in their own right. For instance having a chapter or an individual essay about the character (or characters) would be fine - having an essay or chapter about the
398:
of this show in any way relevant? It isn't. On the other hand, it's widespread success, perhaps not at the hands of Fox but otherwise, has been documented and is well known. It seems you feel the need to respond to every single "keep" but you don't, so stop, especially when it's simply to reiterate
324:
until someone has found and added significant amounts of reliable third-party information to establish individual notabilty. As this show has been cancelled several years now without having these articles establish their notability, it is unlikely that somehow editors will just start working on the
1265:
Clearly, as someone who has read those essays, I would say yes. And I feel you should have called for citations before calling for AfD. But I'm also not going to spend a lot of time updating an article that might be deleted shortly after I put the work in. If the AfD fails, then I'll put the time
1136:
Again to establish notability the source must be about the individual characters to justify an article. If the characters are only mentioned in the context of the series then the articles should be merged into the article for the series. If the cast as a whole is discussed then there should be an
1074:
The comic books are clearly no an independant third party source - as required to establish notability. No one has provided any information from the other sources to say that they contain the relevant information to establish notability for the characters. I would also question the indepenence of
994:
or similar. Much as I do love
Firefly I don't think it's particularly necessary to have articles for every major character, particularly as much of the plot details overlap due to the relatively small number of episodes. A more readable article could probably be produced by combining them. If the
1602:
to source the bulk of these articles (thereby demonstrating notability), not mine. In answer you other question, judging from my experience and also from any
Featured Article, you get about two encyclopedic sentences out of every source. Two paragraphs (5 to 10 sentences each) of out-of-universe
1432:
requires real-world content. Does the source say anything about the writers' inspiration for the character? How the actress was cast for the role? What about make-up and costumes? Was there merchandise for the character? It seems like one or two paragraphs for reception and other cultural impact
854:
you might want to notice that it applies to "delete votes" too - I seem to have noticed you passing some pretty undue judgment on the series, and you appear to have decided that these articles are and always will be fancruft - something that I would seriously doubt since the consensus here is
1171:
I started the AfD as there are no independent secondary sources that are cited in the article and I did not believe any cwould or could be found. As it is nobody has given a source about any of the characters mentioned - they have given the names of sources that are about the tv series. If a
1469:
justify a separate article, that was my point. And I was also actually encouraging the addition of real-world content. Obviously, these articles' year-long existance before this AfD was highly unproductive, and editors in favor of keeping them were and still are unwilling to prove the nom's
578:
way instead of going to AfD, but what's done is done, and the AfD route may bring results faster. These articles also have enough fan backing to not be deleted, so no worries on my side that these characters will receive the coverage they deserve by wiki guidelines and policies. –
518:
How do they merit individual articles? What has been shown by now is that these characters exist and deserve mention, but not that they deserve individual articles. Until significant real-world coverage by third-party sources has been shown, none of these characters are considered
1382:
or merge into single List of as was done with the minor characters as per nom. No notability on their own and only source is companion book to show. No other primarily or secondary third-party reliable sources or real-world relevance. Articles mostly fancruft and in-universe.
1489:
in the articles since the AfD has opened. Not very much in the light that the articles are "in danger". I can just hope that continued "threatening" (which I stated as a normal wiki procedure fact, not as my intention) actually accomplishes something, as nothing else seems to. –
1747:
or needs to be said, about it. For instance, a complex character-based soap opera comic strip may be well within its rights to have articles dedicated to the cast in order to make the strip comprehensible to
Knowledge readers. Yet the strip can be smaller than one about
1731:
or some similar, although the series was good, and the film was enjoyable (yes, I know it's OR) it was only one part series, and one film wihout major commercial sucsess. Notable enough for an article, but not for a whole platoon of them. And that's coming from a fan.
855:
basically keep or merge. So you know, if you're going to call somebody out on their comments reading like WP:ATA, you might want to make sure your nomination doesn't read like "WP:IDONTLIKEIT and I assume it has no sources or possible room for improvement/merging." --
343:. These articles could easily be expanded and tidied to include more good/real-world information. The series, film, and characters are highly notable, as the show was actually highly successful and popular, despite what the nominator would have you believe. ----
215:-leaving aside the reference to the film as a box office bomb, which is POV, it can be factually stated that both film and television series were critical successes. Althought he articles could use better sources, a look at them indicates a lack of
1012:
I'm a fan that came to the series after the movie. The individual character pages were very helpful. I just think that if they were merged onto one single page, these pages would be forced to cut information that I found useful. Please keep them
1019:
for each of these articles. There are additional sources that could be used to improve these articles and they could stand a bit of rewriting but the solution is to improve them, not to delete them. With the continued expansion of the
1595:
The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline
1446:
notable out-of-universe. Furthermore, you should not be threatening repeated AfDs like that. It's highly unproductive, and seems to indicate an unwillingness to cooperate with the established outcome of this AfD.
826:, there is nothing that says that all "ensemble characters are notable" in guidelines or policies. You say that you would encourage "real world tie in" yet there is no evidence that any exists. On what basis from
849:
Citing prior precedent is a far cry from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Let's try to play fair here. The !vote was clearly explained as an inclusionist !vote, with emphasis on possible improvement. If you're going to cite
540:
is the proper course, not an AfD. I do think that (as per the sourcing indicated by the user below) each of these articles can be stand-alone entries, but I'd not oppose merging at least some of them for now.
1144:
You mean besides the book and film that have been mentioned? Those are independent sources. There is clearly support to have articles about each character - you seem to be supporting a merge unless there are
297:
Then he should have asked for citations rather than AfD. AfD when a call for citations would work better is an inherently hostile. If a call for citations goes unheeded, then an AfD might be called for.
726:
I think we're going to find enough material sourcing Inara: the others, maybe not. I see the nom didn't include Mal and River, so he obviously did his homework: I withdraw my "possible bad-faith" comment
1024:
universe thanks to spinoff comics, books, and the possibility of a sequel movie there will be additional details available from reliable sources to continue expanding these articles for years to come. -
197:
says that articles should be based around this information. There is no real world information that exists for any of these characters (that is given in the article or I can find on the internet). --
1541:
Could you please explain where you've gotten the idea that 10-20 references are required to demonstrate notability? Furthermore, you're still arguing that the content compels the articles to fail
368:
Yeah, well maybe you should read up on the show a little bit. We have a whole article about it. The fact that you don't like it or that you don't consider it successful is totally irrelevant. --
1118:, none of whom are affiliated with the series, I would argue that yes, there is independence despite a tie between the editor and the series. Another third-party source is the documentary "
769:
Series is well known, and all ensemble characters are notable. Article is harmless. I would encourage more "real world" tie-in, but would vote inclusion first. See precedent discussion on
1410:
to establish notability? These articles either need establish notability through real-world relevance very fast, or the next AfD (if this one ends in a keep) is just around the corner. –
484:- Hence my follow-up statement, "and the characters merit individual articles." Another editor contributing to this discussion has already demonstrated that the individual articles here
1235:, edited by Jane Espensen with Glenn Yeffeth, BenBella Press 2005, pp.97-103, ISBN=1932100431, an essat specifically about Wash and Zoe and the portrayal of their marriage on the show.
968:
I explained why I felt they were in violation of the polcies - namely that there was no real world information and no secondary sources. I would also say that I did not say it was
834:
are you saying that "all ensemble characters are notable" - because both clearly lay out a requirement for real world, third party information which isn't present here. Finally
127:
1217:, edited by Jane Espensen with Leah Watson, BenBella Press 2007, pp.79-94, ISBN=9781933771212, an essay specifically about Derrial Book's role on the show and in the film.
219:
and everything in them could be sourced to the published scripts, novelization, comics, or the non-fiction essays dealing with the series published in the two volumes
1206:
series in general which mentioned the character would not be (in terms of establishing notability). As for the film I would say a fan talking about a series is not a
1598:
I don't see any proof that these characters have received such significant independent coverage. And as you are in favor of keeping the articles as they are, it is
1433:
could be squeezed out of this source, but none of this is currently included in the article, so you'd only have good faith working for the article at the moment. –
770:
1713:)? Otherwise, it is not more than one or two sourced sentences, which don't establish the notability of the character much in the absense of other material. –
1613:
Once again, WP:N says nothing about article content, only whether or not an article exists. Sources have been provided right here on the AfD. 10-20 sources is
751:. I'm a flan, but the characters are unfortunately not yet notable enough for individual encyclopedia articles (maybe after season 7 of Firefly (will too!)).
976:
they were largely meant to be a bit of background for people who didn't know much about the subject and had no place in this AfD nomination. I apologise. ]
48:. I'm not going to close this as keep, because although there is no consensus to delete, there is also no consensus that the articles so listed should be
1617:
the standard (not by a long shot). I've really got nothing more to say. This is an AfD. If you'd like the article(s) to be improved, take it up there. --
426:- Series is quite notable, despite its short lifespan, and the characters merit individual articles (and the movie, which opened at #2 according to its
387:
movie was also a comercial failure - losing millions of dollars for the studio. I was not saying anything about the quality or otherwise of the show. ]
1545:, a point which (as I stated) is totally invalid. If the sources are there and the content needs more of it, then fix it (or ask someone else to). --
666:
Rowley, C. (2007) ‘Firefly/Serenity: Gendered Space and
Gendered Bodies,’ British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 9(2), pp. 318-325.
1801:
972:
as I gave both reasons and policies to explain my position. I am sorry if I did muddy the water by making arguements that were essentially
708:
to one article. As much as it pains to say it, none of these characters are culturally significant enough to warrant their own article. --
755:
Kaylee's full name and nickname to 3 books and 1 DVD, so the sources exist, but they're about the show and movie, not the character. --
659:
There's also this article, but I don't have easy access to it to see how much it talks about the individual characters. Anybody else? --
1397:
So are you claiming that the reference I added to Inara Serra several days ago is not third-party, not reliable, or not real-world?--
52:. Whilst not deleting is equal to keep, at times a keep result can be taken to mean that an article or group of articles should be
1060:(BenBella Press, 2007) or the forthcoming Serenity comic books (Dark Horse). Note that two of those are not future publications).
523:
enough to "deserve" a separate article. (This addresses all keep votes based on "but they're notable", not you in particular.) –
325:
articles. I'm open to recreation of articles when the nom's concerns are addressed. (Just started rewatching the show on DVD.) –
100:
95:
1559:
Before asserting that I applied these guidelines and policies in a "totally invalid" way, would you please actually read them?
915:
104:
17:
1703:(edit conflict) Would work great in a costumes section. Is there a third-party article talking about the hat (e.g. like this
1636:
1575:
601:
554:
501:
443:
773:
from Harry Potter. Similar mass deletion request of fictional element that also resulted in a "keep" and "merge" decision.--
991:
87:
760:
674:- Notability of series, plus attendant spin-offs (film, graphic novel, etc.). Rationale for deletion is largely POV. --
1406:
What does that reference actually source in the article? Furthermore, does one (or two or three) source(s) demonstrate
713:
1359:
That and he doesn't seem to understand the term 'primary sources' since the TV series and movie are primary sources.
1083:
of the television series. Even then does a collection of essays meet the depth of coverage requirement set out in
1825:
36:
1824:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1805:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1695:
1590:
1420:
1398:
1328:
1285:
756:
728:
660:
651:
638:
287:
1728:
321:
1388:
1302:
reliable sources have been mentioned by several other editors, they just need to be added to the article.
1138:
811:
709:
461:
1532:
as individual articles and should be merged in the hope that they can establish notability as a group. –
679:
1809:
1779:
1760:
1741:
1717:
1698:
1689:
1643:
1626:
1608:
1554:
1536:
1516:
1494:
1465:
paragraph of in-universe/out-of-universe notability (which still hasn't been added to the article) does
1456:
1437:
1423:
1414:
1401:
1392:
1368:
1350:
1332:
1311:
1288:
1275:
1244:
1226:
1200:
1166:
1131:
1069:
1034:
1004:
965:
955:
883:
864:
782:
731:
717:
700:
683:
663:
654:
641:
606:
583:
559:
527:
506:
472:
448:
408:
377:
352:
329:
306:
290:
270:
236:
206:
69:
1141:. No one has given any evidence that the content of the essay collections will establish notability. ]
626:- Series is notable, these are all main characters in the series, and there's independent coverage in
249:
loss. That to me indicates that the movie "bombed" at the box office. Admittedly though it is quite a
1797:
1737:
1632:
1560:
903:
807:
675:
1685:
1364:
1307:
1095:
911:
799:
778:
744:
266:
202:
174:
1792:
1775:
1622:
1550:
1512:
1452:
1346:
1324:
1271:
1240:
1222:
1196:
1162:
1127:
1065:
1030:
951:
has changed about the articles' state since the AfD opened, so his assertions still seem true. –
860:
589:
542:
489:
431:
404:
373:
348:
302:
232:
1748:
1704:
1507:
about article content or how many paragraphs must contain a particular sort of information. --
1384:
520:
361:
I do not know how you can call a show that was cancelled after 1 season "highly successful"? ]
91:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1175:
Yes, that's why documentaries on, say, Star Wars are okay. Because the people who make those
1091:
696:
65:
1210:
and so I don't see why it becomes a reliable source because were filmed whilst doing it. ]
1187:
not "just the show." You can't possibly sit here and demand that a book be published about
1756:
1733:
1115:
1103:
1042:
1000:
748:
537:
427:
193:
states that all articles on fictional topics should be contain real world information and
186:
178:
143:
57:
1521:
I fully agree, so I don't know why you replied. None of these articles have demonstrated
1499:
I'm afraid that out-of-universe references are required to substantiate the article per:
1677:
1681:
1429:
1360:
1320:
1303:
1099:
1045:, that something may be notable in the future is not criteria for current inclusion. ]
932:
907:
851:
831:
823:
803:
774:
572:
262:
250:
198:
190:
1771:
1714:
1640:
1618:
1605:
1546:
1533:
1508:
1491:
1448:
1434:
1411:
1342:
1267:
1236:
1218:
1192:
1158:
1123:
1076:
1061:
1026:
973:
969:
952:
944:
940:
891:
887:
856:
839:
835:
815:
795:
594:
580:
547:
524:
494:
469:
436:
400:
369:
344:
326:
298:
228:
194:
138:
1207:
1084:
936:
928:
827:
819:
258:
254:
216:
182:
170:
83:
75:
1709:
1419:
It sources several things, most notably details about her relationship with Mal.--
1153:
character. There is no such policy, guideline, or precedent. Furthermore, that is
1137:
article on the cast. The individual charcetrs must be notable in their own right,
1048:
Reread what he said, he isn't predicting future notability. He is saying sources
121:
1319:
as these characters have no reliable primary or secondary sources to demonstrate
1542:
1529:
1500:
1111:
1080:
692:
647:
460:
The notability of the series and the films is not under discussion here. But as
158:
148:
61:
990:
with trimmed plot details, while maintaining all the character information, to
943:(MOS). The articles clearly violate all four of them (Guest9999 forgot to cite
1752:
1107:
996:
153:
286:. Can somebody please add material? I have no idea which box my copy is in.--
181:. There are no independant secondary sources and the bulk of the articles is
810:
is not a good arguements these articles should survive on their own merits,
163:
1573:
coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.
1526:
coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject
882:
Your link to "arguments to avoid" seems to cover your nomination as well
282:
He's unfortunately correct: none of those articles make any cited use of
1262:
the articles. Again, currently the articles are completely unsourced. ]
1110:, as well as philosophy professor Lyle Zynda (IU-SB), physics professor
1090:
With essays in the books by individuals such as science fiction authors
588:
Sorry about that, I had you mistaken for the nominator for some reason.
468:, the articles need better arguments to be kept as separate entities. –
1119:
1633:
Knowledge:Notability#Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines
1157:
reason for an AfD. That's a moment when you should suggest a merge. --
1428:
Her relationship with Mal is mostly of in-universe notability, but
399:
your irrelevant reason for nominating this article for deletion. --
134:
I am also nominating the following articles for the same reasons:
1676:
If we add to the Jayne Cobb article more about the popularity of
1818:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1580:
This page in a nutshell: Topics within a fictional universe are
1231:"More Than a Marriage of Convenience," by Michelle Sagara West,
488:
sourceable, thus this is a matter for cleanup and not deletion.
1791:
because they're damn important to all the browncoats out here.
1604:
10 to 20 sources to establish notability. Further questions? –
1075:
said sources as they seem have been compiled and edited by an
464:
and these articles don't establish their subjects' notability
1442:
If there are proper sources about that relationship, then it
1770:
per policy - no real-world content to establish notability.
752:
568:
I already !voted merge. And I would also have prefered the
1680:
in the real world knitting community, does that count? --
1603:
information would demonstrate significant coverage -: -->
842:
from several months ago doesn't neccessarily mean much. ]
536:
If you think they should have mention, then proposing a
1486:
1483:
1480:
1477:
1474:
1471:
948:
117:
113:
109:
1341:
Have you read this AfD? Sources are mentioned here. --
1323:
outside of the television series or film spinoffs. --
1183:
are OBVIOUSLY sources of reliable information about
1637:
Knowledge:Notability (fiction)#Dealing with fiction
1565:This page in a nutshell: A topic is presumed to be
804:
something being harmless is not a reason to keep it
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1179:the Star Wars films. Documentaries and books with
691:to one article, not really notable on their own.
1828:). No further edits should be made to this page.
253:statement and should not detract from the major
430:, was not by any stretch a "box office bomb").
964:I didn't just quote policies as is implied by
175:tv series that was cancelled after one season
8:
814:, we don't have articles on the spouses of
462:Notability is not automatically inherited
1191:character separately. This is absurd. --
1114:(San Jose State University), and editor
1052:exist (for instance third-party sources
1588:coverage in reliable secondary sources.
646:Just added ref to scholarly article to
1694:Well, do it, and we'll find out. :-)--
257:concerns in the article. There are no
992:List of major characters from Firefly
927:In Guest9999's defense, he also used
894:, etc. But, truly, I fail to see the
7:
794:- your comment reads like a list of
745:Firefly (TV series)#Main characters
24:
1213:"The Good Book," by Eric Greene,
179:film which was a box office bomb
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1576:Knowledge:Notability (fiction)
824:no thing is inherently notable
635:Borders on bad-faith nom here.
1:
1810:04:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
1780:22:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
1761:21:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
1742:01:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
1718:15:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
1699:15:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
1690:14:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
1644:09:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
1627:22:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
1609:21:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
1555:19:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
1537:08:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
1517:07:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
1495:14:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
1457:13:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
1438:13:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
1424:12:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
1415:10:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
1402:05:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
1393:05:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
1369:06:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
1351:13:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
1333:10:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
1312:02:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
1289:14:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
1276:17:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
1245:16:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
1227:16:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
1201:16:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
1167:15:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
1132:14:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
1070:13:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
1035:08:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
1005:16:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
956:17:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
865:11:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
783:02:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
732:20:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
718:20:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
701:19:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
684:19:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
664:19:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
655:19:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
642:19:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
607:14:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
584:21:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
560:21:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
528:20:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
507:20:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
473:20:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
449:18:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
409:23:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
378:22:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
353:18:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
330:17:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
307:16:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
291:19:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
271:17:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
259:third party, reliable sources
237:17:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
207:17:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
70:15:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
1639:very closely. Thank you. –
1139:notability is not inherited
812:notability is not inherited
1845:
1056:(BenBella Press, 2005) or
633:, off the top of my head.
50:kept in their present form
935:(notability guidelines),
320:(with trimmed plot) into
1821:Please do not modify it.
1749:a hedgehog. That swears.
838:so a highly contentious
32:Please do not modify it.
1591:Knowledge:Verifiability
899:guideline or essay...?
808:that other stuff exists
341:Merge without prejudice
1584:if they have received
394:So once again, why is
46:No consensus to delete
1729:Characters of firefly
396:your negative opinion
322:Characters of Firefly
1561:Knowledge:Notability
1408:significant coverage
836:consensus can change
822:in their own right,
749:Serenity (film)#Cast
1569:if it has received
1503:. This policy says
1461:On the other hand,
1120:Done the Impossible
1096:Lawrence Watt-Evans
1041:Knowledge is not a
796:arguements to avoid
1793:User:Ragnarokmephy
1470:assertions wrong.
1181:character analysis
173:characters from a
60:for more details.
1812:
1800:comment added by
920:
906:comment added by
798:(which I know is
753:I just referenced
710:The Wookieepedian
183:original research
68:
1836:
1823:
1795:
1233:Finding Serenity
1092:Orson Scott Card
1054:Finding Serenity
970:just not notable
919:
900:
818:unless they are
632:
629:Finding Serenity
604:
599:
598:
592:
577:
571:
557:
552:
551:
545:
504:
499:
498:
492:
446:
441:
440:
434:
337:Keep & Clean
284:Finding Serenity
221:Finding Serenity
125:
107:
64:
34:
1844:
1843:
1839:
1838:
1837:
1835:
1834:
1833:
1832:
1826:deletion review
1819:
1802:220.237.255.185
1707:about Tarot in
1631:Please re-read
1208:reliable source
1116:Ginjer Buchanan
1104:Mercedes Lackey
901:
627:
602:
596:
595:
590:
575:
569:
555:
549:
548:
543:
502:
496:
495:
490:
444:
438:
437:
432:
144:Hoban Washburne
98:
82:
79:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1842:
1840:
1831:
1830:
1814:
1813:
1782:
1765:
1764:
1763:
1722:
1721:
1720:
1701:
1671:
1670:
1669:
1668:
1667:
1666:
1665:
1664:
1663:
1662:
1661:
1660:
1659:
1658:
1657:
1656:
1655:
1654:
1653:
1652:
1651:
1650:
1649:
1648:
1647:
1646:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1354:
1353:
1336:
1335:
1314:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1266:and effort in.
1259:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1229:
1215:Serenity Found
1149:sources about
1100:John C. Wright
1058:Serenity Found
1038:
1037:
1014:
1007:
984:
983:
982:
981:
980:
979:
978:
977:
966:WP:JUSTAPOLICY
959:
958:
922:
921:
884:WP:JUSTAPOLICY
876:
875:
874:
873:
872:
871:
844:
843:
816:notable people
786:
785:
764:
737:
736:
735:
734:
721:
720:
703:
686:
669:
668:
667:
657:
620:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
611:
610:
609:
586:
563:
562:
531:
530:
510:
509:
476:
475:
452:
451:
420:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
413:
412:
411:
389:
388:
381:
380:
363:
362:
356:
355:
333:
332:
314:
313:
312:
311:
310:
309:
294:
293:
274:
273:
240:
239:
225:Serenity Found
167:
166:
161:
156:
151:
146:
141:
132:
131:
78:
73:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1841:
1829:
1827:
1822:
1816:
1815:
1811:
1807:
1803:
1799:
1794:
1790:
1786:
1783:
1781:
1777:
1773:
1769:
1766:
1762:
1758:
1754:
1750:
1745:
1744:
1743:
1739:
1735:
1730:
1726:
1723:
1719:
1716:
1712:
1711:
1706:
1705:Tarot article
1702:
1700:
1697:
1696:uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs
1693:
1692:
1691:
1687:
1683:
1679:
1675:
1674:
1673:
1645:
1642:
1638:
1634:
1630:
1629:
1628:
1624:
1620:
1616:
1612:
1611:
1610:
1607:
1601:
1597:
1592:
1589:
1587:
1583:
1577:
1574:
1572:
1568:
1562:
1558:
1557:
1556:
1552:
1548:
1544:
1540:
1539:
1538:
1535:
1531:
1527:
1525:
1520:
1519:
1518:
1514:
1510:
1506:
1502:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1493:
1488:
1485:
1482:
1479:
1476:
1473:
1468:
1464:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1454:
1450:
1445:
1441:
1440:
1439:
1436:
1431:
1427:
1426:
1425:
1422:
1421:uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs
1418:
1417:
1416:
1413:
1409:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1400:
1399:uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs
1396:
1395:
1394:
1390:
1386:
1381:
1378:
1377:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1352:
1348:
1344:
1340:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1334:
1330:
1326:
1325:Gavin Collins
1322:
1318:
1315:
1313:
1309:
1305:
1301:
1298:
1297:
1290:
1287:
1286:uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs
1283:
1277:
1273:
1269:
1264:
1263:
1260:
1246:
1242:
1238:
1234:
1230:
1228:
1224:
1220:
1216:
1212:
1211:
1209:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1198:
1194:
1190:
1186:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1173:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1164:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1148:
1143:
1142:
1140:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1129:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1093:
1089:
1088:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1067:
1063:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1046:
1044:
1040:
1039:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1023:
1018:
1015:
1011:
1008:
1006:
1002:
998:
993:
989:
986:
985:
975:
971:
967:
963:
962:
961:
960:
957:
954:
950:
946:
942:
939:(policy) and
938:
934:
930:
926:
925:
924:
923:
917:
913:
909:
905:
897:
893:
889:
885:
881:
878:
877:
868:
867:
866:
862:
858:
853:
848:
847:
846:
845:
841:
837:
833:
829:
825:
821:
817:
813:
809:
805:
801:
800:only an essay
797:
793:
790:
789:
788:
787:
784:
780:
776:
772:
768:
765:
762:
758:
754:
750:
746:
742:
739:
738:
733:
730:
729:uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs
725:
724:
723:
722:
719:
715:
711:
707:
704:
702:
698:
694:
690:
687:
685:
681:
677:
673:
670:
665:
662:
661:uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs
658:
656:
653:
652:uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs
649:
645:
644:
643:
640:
639:uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs
636:
630:
625:
622:
621:
608:
605:
600:
593:
587:
585:
582:
574:
567:
566:
565:
564:
561:
558:
553:
546:
539:
535:
534:
533:
532:
529:
526:
522:
517:
514:
513:
512:
511:
508:
505:
500:
493:
487:
483:
480:
479:
478:
477:
474:
471:
467:
463:
459:
456:
455:
454:
453:
450:
447:
442:
435:
429:
425:
422:
421:
410:
406:
402:
397:
393:
392:
391:
390:
385:
384:
383:
382:
379:
375:
371:
367:
366:
365:
364:
360:
359:
358:
357:
354:
350:
346:
342:
338:
335:
334:
331:
328:
323:
319:
316:
315:
308:
304:
300:
296:
295:
292:
289:
288:uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs
285:
281:
278:
277:
276:
275:
272:
268:
264:
260:
256:
252:
247:
244:
243:
242:
241:
238:
234:
230:
226:
222:
218:
214:
211:
210:
209:
208:
204:
200:
196:
192:
188:
185:and probable
184:
180:
176:
172:
165:
162:
160:
157:
155:
152:
150:
147:
145:
142:
140:
139:Zoe Washburne
137:
136:
135:
129:
123:
119:
115:
111:
106:
102:
97:
93:
89:
85:
81:
80:
77:
74:
72:
71:
67:
63:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1820:
1817:
1788:
1784:
1767:
1724:
1708:
1672:
1614:
1599:
1594:
1585:
1581:
1579:
1570:
1566:
1564:
1523:
1522:
1504:
1466:
1462:
1443:
1407:
1385:AnmaFinotera
1379:
1316:
1299:
1232:
1214:
1188:
1184:
1180:
1176:
1154:
1150:
1146:
1057:
1053:
1049:
1043:crystal ball
1021:
1016:
1009:
987:
895:
879:
791:
771:Diagon Alley
766:
759:, 2007-11-16
740:
705:
688:
671:
634:
628:
623:
515:
485:
481:
465:
457:
423:
395:
340:
336:
317:
283:
279:
245:
224:
220:
212:
168:
133:
84:Derrial Book
76:Derrial Book
53:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1796:—Preceding
1678:Jayne's HAT
1586:substantial
1571:significant
1524:significant
1112:Ken Wharton
1077:acquantence
1017:Strong Keep
945:WP:NOT#PLOT
902:—Preceding
648:Inara Serra
159:Kaylee Frye
149:Inara Serra
1734:RedHillian
1380:Delete All
1321:notability
1317:Delete All
1185:characters
1108:Tanya Huff
261:given. --
255:notability
154:Jayne Cobb
54:kept as is
1725:Merge all
1710:Carnivàle
1682:Knulclunk
1596:citation.
1361:Edward321
1304:Edward321
1122:" (2006).
1050:currently
908:Knulclunk
896:advantage
775:Knulclunk
676:Alcarillo
318:Merge all
263:Guest9999
199:Guest9999
164:Simon Tam
1798:unsigned
1785:Keep all
1772:Eusebeus
1715:sgeureka
1641:sgeureka
1619:Cheeser1
1606:sgeureka
1600:your job
1547:Cheeser1
1534:sgeureka
1509:Cheeser1
1492:sgeureka
1449:Cheeser1
1435:sgeureka
1412:sgeureka
1343:Cheeser1
1268:Shsilver
1237:Shsilver
1219:Shsilver
1193:Cheeser1
1159:Cheeser1
1147:separate
1124:Shsilver
1062:Shsilver
1027:Dravecky
1010:Keep All
953:sgeureka
949:Not much
916:contribs
904:unsigned
857:Cheeser1
727:above.--
672:Keep all
624:Keep all
597:Zahakiel
581:sgeureka
550:Zahakiel
525:sgeureka
497:Zahakiel
470:sgeureka
439:Zahakiel
424:Keep all
401:Cheeser1
370:Cheeser1
345:Cheeser1
327:sgeureka
299:Shsilver
229:Shsilver
187:fancruft
128:View log
58:WP:MERGE
1582:notable
1567:notable
1505:nothing
1487:changed
1430:WP:FICT
1081:creator
1079:of the
1022:Firefly
1013:around.
933:WP:FICT
852:WP:ITSA
832:WP:FICT
820:notable
757:Jeandré
521:notable
516:Comment
482:Comment
458:Comment
280:Comment
191:WP:FICT
171:notable
101:protect
96:history
1106:, and
974:WP:BIG
941:WP:WAF
892:WP:JNN
888:WP:BIG
763:23:49z
693:Stifle
538:merger
466:at all
195:WP:WAF
177:and a
105:delete
62:Hiding
1789:Merge
1768:Merge
1753:Kizor
1727:into
1085:WP:NN
997:Mazca
988:Merge
937:WP:OR
929:WP:NN
880:Reply
828:WP:NN
802:) -
792:Reply
743:into
741:Merge
706:Merge
689:Merge
573:merge
428:entry
246:Reply
217:WP:OR
122:views
114:watch
110:links
16:<
1806:talk
1776:talk
1757:talk
1738:talk
1686:talk
1635:and
1623:talk
1551:talk
1543:WP:N
1530:WP:N
1513:talk
1501:WP:N
1481:that
1472:This
1453:talk
1389:talk
1365:talk
1347:talk
1329:talk
1308:talk
1300:Keep
1272:talk
1241:talk
1223:talk
1197:talk
1189:each
1177:hate
1163:talk
1151:each
1128:talk
1087:? ]
1066:talk
1031:talk
1001:talk
931:and
912:talk
861:talk
779:talk
767:Keep
747:and
714:talk
697:talk
680:talk
405:talk
374:talk
349:talk
303:talk
267:talk
233:talk
227:.--
223:and
213:Keep
203:talk
169:Non
118:logs
92:talk
88:edit
1787:or
1615:not
1484:has
1478:all
1467:not
1463:one
947:).
840:AfD
830:or
650:.--
486:are
339:or
251:POV
126:– (
1808:)
1778:)
1759:)
1751:--
1740:)
1732:--
1688:)
1625:)
1593:–
1578:–
1563:–
1553:)
1515:)
1475:is
1455:)
1447:--
1444:is
1391:)
1367:)
1349:)
1331:)
1310:)
1274:)
1243:)
1225:)
1199:)
1165:)
1155:no
1130:)
1102:,
1098:,
1094:,
1068:)
1033:)
1003:)
918:)
914:•
890:,
886:,
863:)
806:,
781:)
716:)
699:)
682:)
637:--
576:}}
570:{{
407:)
376:)
351:)
305:)
269:)
235:)
205:)
189:.
120:|
116:|
112:|
108:|
103:|
99:|
94:|
90:|
1804:(
1774:(
1755:(
1736:(
1684:(
1621:(
1549:(
1511:(
1451:(
1387:(
1363:(
1345:(
1327:(
1306:(
1270:(
1239:(
1221:(
1195:(
1161:(
1126:(
1064:(
1029:(
999:(
910:(
859:(
777:(
761:t
712:(
695:(
678:(
631:.
603:►
591:◄
556:►
544:◄
503:►
491:◄
445:►
433:◄
403:(
372:(
347:(
301:(
265:(
231:(
201:(
130:)
124:)
86:(
66:T
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.