Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. Tam sessions (2nd nomination)

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 merge to Serenity (film). Nakon 01:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

R. Tam sessions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Could not find evidence to support a claim of notability of subject of article. Firefly, yes, but this cannot inherit from that. Article has no sources of its own to support a notability claim, and I found no significant coverage in reliable third party sources. KDS4444^Talk 05:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, the last deletion discussion of this article reads like an excerpt from WP:AADD. Please make your own argument for or against deletion on better criteria than were offered then, yes? Thank you! KDS4444^Talk 05:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Serenity unless better sourcing is found talking about these mini-episodes in particular. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Selective merge and redirect to Serenity, since the real-world purpose of the videos was marketing for that film. Any plot highlights that became relevant to the film can be aptly covered there and/or in the list of Firefly characters article. --EEMIV (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There do seem to be sources out there, but the fact that the sessions could be known by a variety of names doesn't make it easy to search for them. Google Books throws up dozens of potential sources (just search "R. Tam sessions"), and, given that there is a lot of published work on Firefly (and given that there isn't actually much Firefly to go around) there is likely more. I also came across a Sydney Morning Herald piece entirely on the clips: Wilder, Gabriel (1 October 2005). "Suffering for art". Icon, Sydney Morning Herald. p. 9.. This is something that could come up in a number of literatures: anything on Firefly, Joss Whedon, viral marketing, internet videos/memes, sci-fi culture and so on could cover it. (I make this final point not as an "it's interesting" argument, but to point out the likelihood that more sources are out there.) Josh Milburn (talk) 23:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Serenity (film). Once you remove all the plot detail of each of the sessions, which is not enyclopedic, the remaining material does not warrant its own article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Serenity (film). Just a viral marketing campaign for the film, with no sources. The brief mention in the article on the film is adequate. --Michig (talk) 08:31, 21 March 2015 (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.