Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vampire (Buffyverse)

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 due to the improvements made during the discussion phase.--JForget 23:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Vampire (Buffyverse)

Vampire (Buffyverse) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Encountered this when closing an AFD on a duplicate article to this one. The article consists nearly entirely of in-universe language inferred from episodes of the show, and is almost completely unverified original research. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, and Wikipedia is not a plot guide. Coredesat 03:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Per the nom's reasons (every single one). - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This piece of fancrufty original research is not only unverified (not a reason to delete), it's largely unverifiable (which is a justification for deletion). I don't see how a sourced article on this topic is possible without synthesis, as I doubt any reliable sources deal with the topic of "the Buffyverse vampires". (BTW: The fan-derived term "Buffyverse" has no place on Wikipedia.) szyslak 09:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• comment I suppose nobody has ever made a reference to the fact that the series deals with Vampires? And I suppose our rule is that any word originated by fans or fan fiction is unmentionable on WP. Just what universe are we in, or does in-universe mean excluding anything written in our own? DGG (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm not honestly sure what to think of this. In it's current state, it is completely unnacceptable for Wikipedia, that I agree. However, I'm wondering whether an article on Buffyverse vampires could pass policies if it was rewritten. If it focused on what inspired Whedon during the creation process of the vampires... I remember him saying that he gave him vampy faces and had them turn to dust because he didn't want to show a teenage girl stabbing people on a weekly basis. I also know that viewer reaction to Spike affected the way vamps were treated in the show - they were originally intended to have no redeeming features at all. The Buffy companion book The Monster Book has some good info on Buffyverse vamps, comparing them against Stoker vamps and Nosferatu. That doesn't establish notability though, but there might be academic studies examining how vampires are used as a metaphor for real life or something. Obviously, all these need proper sources, which I don't have ATM, but if the article was rewritten, I could see it passing policies. That's a prettt big "if" though...  Paul  730 22:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I was going to ask a similar question about re-writing this article so that it had more of a real-world perspective (for example, comparing Buffy vampires to folklore vampires). I also want to point out that there are articles for Watcher (Buffyverse), Slayer (Buffyverse) and Demon (Buffyverse). I think an article for Buffy the Vampire Slayer vampires could be notable. The Slayer article is also completely written in-universe, but if that isn't an AfD, then I don't feel this Vampire article should be deleted either. (I'm not saying the Slayer article is good, but I'm just trying to say that I feel that if that stays, so should this one.) • Supāsaru 01:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Just because those others exist does not mean that this should, or that they should. They have to abide by the same rules as every other article. The simple fact that no one has AfD'd them does not mean they meet the criteria, just that no one has either seen them, or care enough to say anything about it. If the Slayer, Demon, and Watcher articles look just like this one, then they probably do need to be AfD'd. Given that this one is currently the only one in an AfD, and you are seeing the reasons, I would quickly go over to those other articles and point out the problems so that they may be fixed before someone does put them up for deletion. Nip it in the bud, don't wait for someone to challenge it later.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - There isn't a single secondary source, that I saw when looking over it, that indicates that "Vampires" in Buffy the Vampire Slayer are notable enough for their own article. If it's a certain character, we have character lists for Buffy. If you just want to talk about Vampires in the show, I suggest transwiking all that information to the Buffy Wikia. Unless someone can show that vampires in the show are notable, with significant coverage in third-party sources, then I don't think it should have its own page. Even with some sources, it may be something better suited to the general vampire, under film and television. Someone could probably write up a good paragraph on how scholars have seen vampires portrayed in the series--if they've even written about them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT: "Summary descriptions of plot, characters, and settings are appropriate when paired with such real-world information, but not when they are the sole content of an article." I would not oppose an article based on secondary sources about how vampires in the Buffyverse differ from vampires in other kinds of lore. Here, we have no real-world context about the relevance of such in-universe information. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the Buffyverse is the subject of academic studies: just look at this Google Scholar search and our own article on Buffy studies. I'm putting this up for rescue. DHowell 03:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'd like to ask that you all give me a little time to try and fix up this article. I'm going to look through The Monster Book and watch a DVD featurette about the vamp prosthestics, as well as look through some of those Google Scholar links that DHowell was kind enough to put enough. I'm also going to delete all the fancruft that's currently there. I'm not saying it'll be great quality, or even that I'll be able to save the page from deletion, but I'd like a few days at least to try without having it deleted from under my feet.  Paul  730 19:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as the whole well-known show and movie focuses on vampires and also because an effort appears to be underway to save the article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep-- the reasons for nomination are factually incorrect. This article contains no original research that I have noticed, although the references are in fact lacking. The term "Buffyverse" has been used by Joss Whedon. (Check the buffyverse article itself). This article does not contain any plot guide at all. CatherS 03:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • To clarify, the nom's concerns were valid, but in trying to address them I have deleted much of the innappropiate material. Look at the history to see that it was just a big plot summary. The "Buffyverse" term is okay under certain circumstances I feel, but not the article title. That can be easily solved with a move though.  Paul  730 03:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The article is still in an in-universe tone and uses mostly primary sources. I think the concerns are still valid. --Coredesat 06:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I asked the nom on his talk page if he was satisfied with the direction the article is going in, but I agree it needs some more work. However, I do think the concerns are in the process of being addressed, and the article is improving.  Paul  730 06:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, vampires are the raison d'être of the movie & central to the series' plot. Some of the major characters of the show were vampires, so I find that this article provides a useful context. • Supāsaru 14:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Paul730 has greatly improved the article. It is no longer solely in-universe or a plot summary. Bláthnaid 20:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The current article has sufficient real-world content to build on (good job). Further issues are for cleanup, not for AfD. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• After some deliberation, I've decided that I think this article should be Kept. The information that I've added seems valuable enough, if incomplete. My only concern is whether or not there are enough third-party sources to establish notability for an entire article on Buffyverse vampires. I've not had the time or the concentration to shift through those Google scholar sources to know if there's any useable info. If it can't establish enough notability for an individual article, then perhaps down the line this article should be merged into a "Vampires in TV/Pop culture" or "List of supernatural creatures in Buffy"-style page. However, the nominators' issues seem to have been addressed for the most part; the article has no OR that I can see, and is not a plot summary (the IU info which is there exists to provide context for the later info). Deleting this article would only result in a loss of encyclopedic information, info which was not in the article at the time of nomination.  Paul  730 22:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per complete rewrite--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 21:20, 5 December 2007 (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.