- 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 07:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Watcher (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Watcher (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:INUNIVERSE and WP:PLOTty article on a fictional organisation, sourced to WP:PRIMARY. A summary is already present in Buffyverse#Watchers, and there is no need for a WP:SPINOUT in such a state. Redirect or delete? – sgeureka t• c 07:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka t• c 07:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka t• c 07:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. This concept/term is an integral part of the series and is discussed at length in multiple reliable sources. The article as it stands now depends too heavily on primary sources and should be expanded with secondary sources, but that's an argument for improving the article, not deleting it. — Hunter Kahn 14:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. A Google Scholar search reveals ( unsurprisingly) plenty of scholarly analysis. Josh Milburn ( talk) 16:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment The two keep !votes above do not address my nom rationale why Buffyverse#Watchers can't cover this subject just fine. – sgeureka t• c 08:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep It is a very important concept of Buffy the vampire slayer. It also makes the series the feministic series that it is in the way that it shows Buffy's resistance to the organization (which is like a metaphor for oppressing women in a patriarchal society). It makes the series what is and definitely deserves its own page. I will be adding some things about that shortly to the page, but well I am not a natural English speaker. So I might make mistakes, if anyone is able to correct them it would be very nice. Thanks in advance. -- Dynara23 ( talk) 09:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. There's an extensive body of criticism and analysis of the "Buffyverse", ranging from the fannish to the heavy-duty academic, and there's not even a pretense here of attempting to review any relevant material. It's a bit disturbing to see an admin disregarding the central element of deletion policy that the quality of an article in no way determines the notability of its subject. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! ( talk) 23:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep as there appears to be enough coverage from third-party, reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG policy. Aoba47 ( talk) 20:11, 15 January 2020 (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. Sandstein 07:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Watcher (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Watcher (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:INUNIVERSE and WP:PLOTty article on a fictional organisation, sourced to WP:PRIMARY. A summary is already present in Buffyverse#Watchers, and there is no need for a WP:SPINOUT in such a state. Redirect or delete? – sgeureka t• c 07:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka t• c 07:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka t• c 07:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. This concept/term is an integral part of the series and is discussed at length in multiple reliable sources. The article as it stands now depends too heavily on primary sources and should be expanded with secondary sources, but that's an argument for improving the article, not deleting it. — Hunter Kahn 14:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. A Google Scholar search reveals ( unsurprisingly) plenty of scholarly analysis. Josh Milburn ( talk) 16:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment The two keep !votes above do not address my nom rationale why Buffyverse#Watchers can't cover this subject just fine. – sgeureka t• c 08:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep It is a very important concept of Buffy the vampire slayer. It also makes the series the feministic series that it is in the way that it shows Buffy's resistance to the organization (which is like a metaphor for oppressing women in a patriarchal society). It makes the series what is and definitely deserves its own page. I will be adding some things about that shortly to the page, but well I am not a natural English speaker. So I might make mistakes, if anyone is able to correct them it would be very nice. Thanks in advance. -- Dynara23 ( talk) 09:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. There's an extensive body of criticism and analysis of the "Buffyverse", ranging from the fannish to the heavy-duty academic, and there's not even a pretense here of attempting to review any relevant material. It's a bit disturbing to see an admin disregarding the central element of deletion policy that the quality of an article in no way determines the notability of its subject. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! ( talk) 23:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep as there appears to be enough coverage from third-party, reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG policy. Aoba47 ( talk) 20:11, 15 January 2020 (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.