Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reaver (Firefly)

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 speedy keep per nominator withdrawal. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reaver (Firefly)

Not notable, as there is a lack of reliable sources independent of the topic. (Try doing a google search for Reaver Firefly; there is not much coverage.) – DroEsperanto^{(talk|contribs)} 15:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because its well written, a notable element of a notable fictional series, and found in both the series and the movie. I read it all through, enjoying the article, even though I had no interest in the series itself. Remember, wikipedia is not a set of rules. The guidelines are suggestions, not absolute law. If a rule gets in the way of making the encyclopedia better, you are suppose to ignore it, and use consensus and common sense. There is no possible reason, other than wikilawyering, to try to destroy this article. Dream Focus 20:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree with your assessment that the article is well written and interesting. A lot of the content is crufty and probably boring to most readers. Would the average person who didn't know what reavers are really care about their battle techniques and ship markings or what Book thinks about them? The important information -- that they are savage humanoids floating through space killing things and encountering the crew of Serenity -- could easily be expressed in a section or even a set of parentheses. The rest is cruft that belongs in fireflywiki, not Wikipedia. – DroEsperanto^{(talk|contribs)} 21:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the average person isn't interested, they don't have to read it. The average person doesn't care about any of the science or real world history articles. Popular culture dominates wikipedia, and has from the beginning. Its interesting to those who care enough to come to this article, seeking out information through a search engine, or link clicking over from the main article page. Dream Focus 22:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Doing a Google search, I see hits for GScholar [1] and GBooks. [2] Edward321 (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - independent coverage includes this scholarly article, so they're apparently notable.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I guess there's no arguing with that! I withdraw this AfD, so I suppose it can be speedy kept. – DroEsperanto^{(talk|contribs)} 00:48, 23 June 2009 (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.