Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buffyverse studies

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. - Mailer Diablo 11:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buffyverse studies

I don't think this is sufficiently encyclopedic. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think it has the potential to be encyclopedic. At present it's mostly just a list of Books about Buffy with one link to an online scholarly journal. But this subject does seem to be taken seriously (and studied seriously) but many published authors. I'd let this article continue to grow and expand. Scorpiondollprincess 15:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR and non-notable - there's no evidence that the concept isn't made up (lumping some books and a website together doesn't cut it - the website is on Buffy studies rather than Buffyverse studies anyway). If it gets some references I'll change my opinion (weak-minded fool that I am) Yomangani 17:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable original research. Fancruft in disguise. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 03:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*delete WP:NEO neologism. we could reinstate it of any reputable university has a course on it. Any useful content here can be merged into Buffy the Vampire Slayer Ohconfucius 03:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

vote change to weak delete. [Edit: No to a redirect from buffyverse studies] "Buffyverse" is a definite no-no per WP:NEO. Good effort to rewrite and add supporting references, would vote to keep if renamed to "Buffy studies" or somesuch. Ohconfucius 03:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Konman72 06:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep I am changing my vote. Notability and fancruft, not that it violates either in my opinion, have never been sufficient reason for deletion. The reason fancruft articles are deleted is due to a lack of citation and verifiability, which I feel this article does a good job of avoiding. Even if it has issues I think that it has the ability to improve. Konman72 21:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: At this point in the discussion the article underwent a major edit in efforts to improve the article.

Keep - For several reasons:

Edited - I gave the article a fairly major overhaul, but think the article has the potential to further improve, and offer an impartial perspective on this polarising phenomenon; there are those who believe that this is a topic worthy of study, and those who believe academics should be doing better things with their time. The article can grow and improve to cite sources from both sides. The study of Buffy has not declined since the show ended, with many acdemics finding it easier to now analyse the series as one complete and closed 'text' - so the topic will continue to grow. And I think it deserves a tiny little space here at Wikipeda. There are several things that people should take into account before voting.

Navigation - The article is needed for navigation for anyone looking for Buffyverse academia info rather than looking for one of the specific books.

Dictionary? - The article isn't supposed to be saying that "Buffyverse studies" is a widely used term or a concept. The article is about the study of the Buffyverse, so the article is called 'Buffyverse studies'. ..On a side note "Buffy studies" is kinda widely used by the acdemics who study the show, and Googling using speech marks for an exact phrase ("Buffy studies") gets over 26 000 results. It's mainly been popularised by the popularity of www.slayage.tv. But this isn't given more than a brief mention in a footnote in the article.

Notability - I can't help thinking that this topic is a lot more notable than people realise. It already has over a dozen published books (with more planned during 2006-7), and hundreds of articles (take a look at this massive extensive bibliogrpahy). Conferences relating to the study of Buffy have been held at Universities (including University of East Anglia, and University of Huddersfield). The topic appeared on the front page of Salon.com back in 2002 (see [1]) and even in the Financial Times), amongst others. I found a few articles about this topic and added them in external links (or cited them for info).

Are there still any major issues that people have with the article that might be addressed? -- Paxomen 12:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - very good work Paxomen - the UEA conference establishes enough notability for it as far as I'm concerned (although it would be better at Buffy studies with the redirect pointing there, as that seems to be the more generally accepted term). Yomangani 12:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think your right this needs to be renamed to the actually used term, 'Buffy studies', and the article slightly reworded to take into account new title. Can this be done during AfD? -- Paxomen 13:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'd need an admin to do it, as the redirect will stop you moving the page. Best to ask the closing admin to do the move if the AfD results in a keep. Yomangani 13:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant keep. It's an excellent rewrite. Good sources. And I'd agree with the rename to "Buffy studies", because using "Buffyverse" makes this sound extremely fancrufty (hence my "reluctant" keep). --Core des at talk. ^_^ 19:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but "keep" working on it. Cite more sources etc. Is this topic considered "fandom"? Xsxex 21:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Wow. I initially thought the article title was a dead give-away for fan cruft, but actually seeing the breadth of books and references on the topic the article has definitely established its notability, though I'm perfectly sure future AFD opposers will hold this up for comparison in their defence. I also support a rename though. -- Netsnipe ^(Talk) 07:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I felt like I learned something from reading it that I didn't previously know, so I'd say it's useful enough to keep around. It looks like whoever wrote/edited this article really did their homework. No pun intended. MaskedScissorDoll 20:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep If BTvS has sufficient meat to it to have several books and hundreds of articles written about it, as well as its own encyclopaedia, I say there's enough for an article on academia. Joss rules! Dev920 07:30, 12 August 2006 (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.