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.  Sandstein  20:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Babylon 5's use of the Internet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Here's an interesting find: this entire article is original research from head to foot, including its claim to notability. There is nothing salvageable here. If Babylon 5's use of the Internet is significant it would actually have to be described from scratch using reliable sources. Shii (tock) 07:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an empirical example of WP:SYNTH. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Stifle and lack of reliable sources. 59.167.44.59 (talk) 11:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC) — 59.167.44.59 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep pending improvement. I think the article is viable and B5 is considered a pioneer in this arena. I say pending because it does need better sourcing, however given the nature of the topic, some slack needs to be given to online sources. No objection to the article being renominated in a 6 months to a year if it hasn't been improved. See the nom I went in expecting to see an OR essay, but I do not feel that is the case here. Needs to be retitled to something less essay-ish like Babylon 5 Internet marketing or some such. 23skidoo (talk) 12:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There's a lot of RS material with which to improve this. See rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated and its recently concluded deletion discussion for an example. I'll ping the B5 user project for assistance. Jclemens (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 15:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• There's an entire book devoted to this subject:
  • Kurt Lancaster (2001). Interacting with Babylon 5: Fan Performance in a Media Universe. University of Texas Press. ISBN 9780292747227.
• Uncle G (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor quible; only one chapter of this book is devoted to use of the internet. Taemyr (talk) 22:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Babylon 5 is a genuine pioneer in this area. The matter has feasible layman interest and academic interest as an early and extensive example of the interaction between the mediums. I'll revise my opinion after I've looked further into what is available, but given Uncle G's track record on these matters I expect I'll be for keeping. --Kizor 17:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually came across it when finding sources that documented The Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5 (AfD discussion) (also nominated for deletion by Shii (talk · contribs)). I was surprised to find that documented in books, and the extent to which it was documented. (I was expecting just a cursory mention along with a URL.) I was similarly surprised to find this documented. Uncle G (talk) 19:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • We are not looking for documentation, but rather evidence that either subject is relevant to non-fans. Is it Babylon 5 that is important, or are we rather talking about a hypothetical article named "Science fiction and the Internet" that would benefit from this information? Shii (tock) 01:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The existence of independent coverage suggests that it is indeed relevant to non-fans, or certainly more than the casual fan. The show apparently isn't offensive enough for people to get uppity in opposition to it. Just because the people interested enough to give it the discussion required for verifiability and notability to be met also happen to have positive feelings about it doesn't render their analysis null and void. --Masamage ♫ 02:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per our Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research policies, documentation is precisely what we should be, and, for some of us, are looking for. And deleting things because only some people are interested them has never been our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. You need to read about Jimbo's "no". Notability is not fame nor importance. Uncle G (talk) 12:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Uncle G. --Captain Infinity (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated. No reason to lose any content per se, but at least put them together. --Masamage ♫ 23:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This was brought up in the AfD for that article, and several editors had serious misgivings about it--Seems the newsgroup has content on more JMS projects than just B5, so the topics of the two articles don't overlap cleanly, and there's no really good place to put the remainders. Still, it's a much better option than deleting either one. Jclemens (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed...Keep per Uncle G. Tomer^talk 02:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have rearranged the article and added several sources. Every individual claim now has some sourcing. Will all Delete voters please revisit the article and add {{fact}} or other appropriate tags such that I can correct what deficiencies remain, with an eye towards meeting WP:HEY? Jclemens (talk) 17:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - even before the recent added citations, the article was fairly well sourced - I never saw "original research from head to foot" as the nom suggests. Agree with the idea that the article may need a better title, tho. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually the article still doesn't have any reliable sources, it's kind of pathetic really. Shii (tock) 01:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of the three I added, one was a copy of an SEC filing documenting the referenced contest. If you are here to help improve Wikipedia, specific, actionable criticisms would be welcome. Jclemens (talk) 01:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shii, with that comment your agenda has become clear. --Captain Infinity (talk) 11:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What's his agenda? Tomer^talk 18:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not privy to User:Shii's agenda, but calling something "pathetic" is a value judgement. Might not hurt to look at Special:Contributions/Shii, either. Shii has threatened to WP:IAR and delete another former featured article without going through the AfD process. This level of antagonism against B5-related articles is perplexing. Jclemens (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • We have procedures for handling this. Tomer^talk 22:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Weak keep Going through the sources provided; The first 5 is attributed to Straczynski, and as such is not independent. The lurkers guide is a fan run web page, that I don't think can be considered as reliable pr WP:RS. It also only give passing mention of overall use of the internet, so as such does not give non trivial coverage. The hollywoodupclose does not give nontrivial coverage of the subject. The next two is sourced to Straczynski. The last two sources are primary sources, thus not independent. The book by Lancaster is independent, and gives nontrivial coverage. The requirement of WP:N, is multiple independent reliable sources giving nontrivial coverage. One source is not "multiple". Taemyr (talk) 22:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Withdrawing vote, depends on depth of coverage.[reply]

• OK, I added another book source--now there are two. Does that meet WP:HEY for you? Jclemens (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, I would have to go to a library to check that the book gives indepth coverage of topic. Taemyr (talk) 23:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I found at least one of them on Google Books, so you might be able to find it there. Thanks for the !vote revision. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I've added information and citing from two more book chapters and another journal article. --Zeborah (talk) 06:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Zeborah's work. -- Banjeboi 00:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, reasonable subarticle, seems well-cited. Everyking (talk) 07:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but merge with rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated. I don't accept the arguments about original research - this article seems to be sufficiently well-referenced to pass our guidelines. However, I don't see the need for two articles on very similar subjects. Terraxos (talk) 12:35, 27 October 2008 (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.