Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buffering the Vampire Slayer


 * 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. As per consensus and withdrawal by nominator (non-admin closure) — Amkgp  💬  14:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Buffering the Vampire Slayer

 * – ( View AfD View log )

What makes this podcast notable? Not a single source contains an in-depth, independent analysis of the program. The best it has going for it are a few mentions in listicles, the best one is The 50 Best Podcasts to Listen to Right Now from Time, but it is just a paragraph. I don't think that's enough. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  09:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  09:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

These sources further bolster Buffering the Vampire Slayer's notability, even if they are not currently linked from the Wikipedia page. --Spartycat (talk) 02:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: In my opinion, Time and Esquire with a paragraph and Junkee with two, each containing some (positive) analysis, should be enough to fulfill WP:GNG. Then there are also several shorter secondary sources which each give a bit of praise. So I think the article should be kept. Or to phrase it differently: What's the benefit of deletion for Wikipedia's readers if this topic should be just below the (somewhat subjective) notability threshold which outweighs the loss of the article if it should be just above the threshold? Daranios (talk) 11:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: I agree with Daranios that the existing sources are sufficient for this page to meet notability criteria. Additionally, this podcast has been written about in academic sources. For example:
 * a PhD about the Female Gothic and feminist literary criticism,
 * a Master's thesis on fanpodcasts,
 * an article on Harry Potter re-read podcasts that describes Buffering the Vampire Slayer as "a great example of this [rewatch podcast] genre" (p.370), and
 * a chapter in a book on urban fantasy.
 * Please see WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:NOHARM. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The argument above is based on coverage in secondary sources, including an academic one that has a number of pages with analysis about the subject. So it refers to the heart of WP:GNG and your statement that supposedly "Not a single source contains an in-depth, independent analysis of the program". Could you please let us know why the essay you pointed to should be at all relevant here? Thanks! ( Excuse me for jumping in, but I am really curious about this.) Daranios (talk) 11:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm also confused, my point did not have to do with the article being useful/useless or harmful/harmless, but related to concerns about notability. --Spartycat (talk) 04:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Withdraw. I have take a second look at the sources, and it did become apparent for some reason (maybe a typo in my search) I missed many good ones, which, as demonstrated above, do exist. Mea culpa :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying! --Spartycat (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets GNG. Plus, the nom has voted to withdraw the nomination. — Ad Meliora Talk∕Contribs 17:42, 18 November 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.