- 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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Slayer (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Slayer (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A fictional concept from the Buffyverse, where this could be merged. No reception, analysis, even creation/development, just 100% plot summary with footnotes to primary sources (TV episodes, mostly). My BEFORE is not showing anything helpful, although as always, I'd be happy to be proven wrong. Said BEFORE is difficult due to generic term here, particularly in the context of the show's name - maybe someone familiar with scholarly research into this show will be able to cobble up some analysis to save this? Otherwise, as I said above, we can just redirect it (perhaps merge a few tidbits?) per ATD/SOFTDELETE to Buffyverse. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: Slayer Slang: A Buffy the Vampire Slayer Lexicon, p. 3, has a bit of commentary on the role of Slayer, and p. 12-16 has a lot of semantics on the term Slayer/slayer. Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Philosophy has discussions of the Slayer concept distributed: P. 38 compares it to a superhero's secret identity, the chapter starting at p. 103 compares the duties of the Slayer to those of the Philosopher, p. 192 discusses the relationship between the Slayer figure and society. Daranios ( talk) 15:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect to
Buffyverse. As Daranios put forth, the concept may be notable, but the article reached the
WP:TNT threshold due to its
WP:ALLPLOT, in-universe content. I also think that even if notable, it would fail
WP:OVERLAP with the Buffyverse.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
15:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- You do know TNT says nothing about notable articles which suck, right? Jclemens ( talk) 06:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Two more sources are the PhD theses " A Double-Edged Sword: Feminist Reclamation in Neomedieval Fantasy" and " Telling girlhood: Girls' studies, reparative trauma and 20th century US popular culture", which, among other things, analyse the Slayer as a feminist concept, and the Slayers' development through eras of feminism, respectively. Funnily enough, "A Double-Edged Sword" has detailed analysis of the Slayer's weapons' symbolism, which I would not have expect to be a section reflected in scholarly work. Now clearly this article has the problem of missing non-plot content and secondary sources. But as the found sources together show, (and there are a number of others, though with probably shorter treatments) the concept is notable. It is not a case for WP:TNT, because that would only apply "if the article's content is useless ... but the title might be useful". This is obviously not the case, as both a part of the plot-summary content and a part of the weapons content can be found again in these secondary sources and would be part of a "good" article on the topic. Daranios ( talk) 18:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, yeah, with regard to WP:OVERLAP I think if all the relevant analysis from the found sources (and as I said, there are more) would be incorporated into Buffyverse#Slayers together with an balanced amount of plot summary, that would make that section akwardly large as compared to the rest of that article, as described in WP:NOTMERGE #2. And there is simply enough content for a stand-alone article as described in WP:WHYN. Daranios ( talk) 19:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep as an AfD outcome per Daranios's RS findings. No objection to a merger discussion as a discussion, but there are enough RS'es that a merge is not an appropriate AfD-compelled outcome. Jclemens ( talk) 19:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect to Buffyverse#Slayer and develop the content from there until it hits WP:SPINOUT territory. The concept should definitively be covered on WP, but there's nothing really salvageable here. A stub-like fresh start as part of the larger universe will help without completely nuking it; the redirect leaves the article history behind for selective culling for interested parties. – sgeureka t• c 14:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Meets
WP:GNG per above sourcing. More SIGCOV of the the idea in these books:
[1]
[2]. Aside: Personally, I find it's easier to fix these articles than to start them fresh. —
siro
χ
o
07:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- I've added a few sources and a short reception/analysis section to the article. —
siro
χ
o
09:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- @
Siroxo Thanks, and I think this will likely be closed as keep. I'll nonetheless choose to dissent and not withdraw this, as I think much of what you've added is not about the concept of "Slayer" but about Buffy, the character, at least as written and quoted in the article right now.
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here
02:27, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- Sure thing. I included some coverage about the potentials and the first slayer, there will be more coverage on both of those. Much slayer content will be inherently tied up with the main character. The dichotomy of teenage desires vs slayer responsibilities is a major theme in the show and would belong in both topics. "The slayer" is frequently mentioned in concept distinct from Buffy even when she is the individual in the room, in the show but more importantly in secondary sources. There will definitely be more to add on Faith, Kendra, Fray, Nikki Wood, and likely some I'm forgetting, from those and other secondary sources. — siro χ o 02:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- @
Siroxo Thanks, and I think this will likely be closed as keep. I'll nonetheless choose to dissent and not withdraw this, as I think much of what you've added is not about the concept of "Slayer" but about Buffy, the character, at least as written and quoted in the article right now.
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here
02:27, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- I've added a few sources and a short reception/analysis section to the article. —
siro
χ
o
09:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: Per sources provided by multiple editors, this subject meets WP:GNG. User:Let'srun 14:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Slayer (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Slayer (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A fictional concept from the Buffyverse, where this could be merged. No reception, analysis, even creation/development, just 100% plot summary with footnotes to primary sources (TV episodes, mostly). My BEFORE is not showing anything helpful, although as always, I'd be happy to be proven wrong. Said BEFORE is difficult due to generic term here, particularly in the context of the show's name - maybe someone familiar with scholarly research into this show will be able to cobble up some analysis to save this? Otherwise, as I said above, we can just redirect it (perhaps merge a few tidbits?) per ATD/SOFTDELETE to Buffyverse. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: Slayer Slang: A Buffy the Vampire Slayer Lexicon, p. 3, has a bit of commentary on the role of Slayer, and p. 12-16 has a lot of semantics on the term Slayer/slayer. Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Philosophy has discussions of the Slayer concept distributed: P. 38 compares it to a superhero's secret identity, the chapter starting at p. 103 compares the duties of the Slayer to those of the Philosopher, p. 192 discusses the relationship between the Slayer figure and society. Daranios ( talk) 15:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect to
Buffyverse. As Daranios put forth, the concept may be notable, but the article reached the
WP:TNT threshold due to its
WP:ALLPLOT, in-universe content. I also think that even if notable, it would fail
WP:OVERLAP with the Buffyverse.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
15:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- You do know TNT says nothing about notable articles which suck, right? Jclemens ( talk) 06:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Two more sources are the PhD theses " A Double-Edged Sword: Feminist Reclamation in Neomedieval Fantasy" and " Telling girlhood: Girls' studies, reparative trauma and 20th century US popular culture", which, among other things, analyse the Slayer as a feminist concept, and the Slayers' development through eras of feminism, respectively. Funnily enough, "A Double-Edged Sword" has detailed analysis of the Slayer's weapons' symbolism, which I would not have expect to be a section reflected in scholarly work. Now clearly this article has the problem of missing non-plot content and secondary sources. But as the found sources together show, (and there are a number of others, though with probably shorter treatments) the concept is notable. It is not a case for WP:TNT, because that would only apply "if the article's content is useless ... but the title might be useful". This is obviously not the case, as both a part of the plot-summary content and a part of the weapons content can be found again in these secondary sources and would be part of a "good" article on the topic. Daranios ( talk) 18:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, yeah, with regard to WP:OVERLAP I think if all the relevant analysis from the found sources (and as I said, there are more) would be incorporated into Buffyverse#Slayers together with an balanced amount of plot summary, that would make that section akwardly large as compared to the rest of that article, as described in WP:NOTMERGE #2. And there is simply enough content for a stand-alone article as described in WP:WHYN. Daranios ( talk) 19:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep as an AfD outcome per Daranios's RS findings. No objection to a merger discussion as a discussion, but there are enough RS'es that a merge is not an appropriate AfD-compelled outcome. Jclemens ( talk) 19:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect to Buffyverse#Slayer and develop the content from there until it hits WP:SPINOUT territory. The concept should definitively be covered on WP, but there's nothing really salvageable here. A stub-like fresh start as part of the larger universe will help without completely nuking it; the redirect leaves the article history behind for selective culling for interested parties. – sgeureka t• c 14:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Meets
WP:GNG per above sourcing. More SIGCOV of the the idea in these books:
[1]
[2]. Aside: Personally, I find it's easier to fix these articles than to start them fresh. —
siro
χ
o
07:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- I've added a few sources and a short reception/analysis section to the article. —
siro
χ
o
09:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- @
Siroxo Thanks, and I think this will likely be closed as keep. I'll nonetheless choose to dissent and not withdraw this, as I think much of what you've added is not about the concept of "Slayer" but about Buffy, the character, at least as written and quoted in the article right now.
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here
02:27, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- Sure thing. I included some coverage about the potentials and the first slayer, there will be more coverage on both of those. Much slayer content will be inherently tied up with the main character. The dichotomy of teenage desires vs slayer responsibilities is a major theme in the show and would belong in both topics. "The slayer" is frequently mentioned in concept distinct from Buffy even when she is the individual in the room, in the show but more importantly in secondary sources. There will definitely be more to add on Faith, Kendra, Fray, Nikki Wood, and likely some I'm forgetting, from those and other secondary sources. — siro χ o 02:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- @
Siroxo Thanks, and I think this will likely be closed as keep. I'll nonetheless choose to dissent and not withdraw this, as I think much of what you've added is not about the concept of "Slayer" but about Buffy, the character, at least as written and quoted in the article right now.
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here
02:27, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- I've added a few sources and a short reception/analysis section to the article. —
siro
χ
o
09:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: Per sources provided by multiple editors, this subject meets WP:GNG. User:Let'srun 14:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- 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.