Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buffy the Vampire Slayer adult parodies


 * 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  07:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Buffy the Vampire Slayer adult parodies
Vanity: the page author seems to be involved in the comic book, and it doesn't meet notability reqs. The movies aren't Buffy parodies (and the article even says that about one of them). Most of the text about the movies is cut&pasted from the sources listed, so the article is mostly a copyvio. Pornspam, too, do we really care about the umpteen other "Buffy" movies that have nothing to do with the TV show? "Parody" means more than alluding to something in the title, and these movies aren't parodies. VivianDarkbloom 20:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Re:Vanity: Please do not mislead voters Vivian:
 * (1) I am the author of the article, and am not involved in the comic book, I simply named my login name after the comic.
 * (2) The comic, Boffy the Vampire Layer is an adult parody of Buffy (TV series), and the movies Buffy the Vampire Layer, and Muffy the Vampire Layer are both parodies of Buffy (TV series/movie). All of these three parodies contain young teenage slayers obviously parodying the character Buffy Summers. Muffy the Vampire Slayer is the only movie which in its content does not parody Buffy (TV/movie), simply it's title does.
 * (3) The text is not cut and pasted.. The sources listed were used for the story descriptions, but there was no copy & paste involved and comparisons between the wiki-article and the sources will result in noticing there is complete rewording.
 * (4) Because of the points above, I do not see any genuine justification for nominating this article other than a dislike of adult content, but please review WP:Not#Wikipedia is not censored —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boffy Layer (talk • contribs).


 * Delete or compress into a sentence or two and merge with Buffy the Vampire Slayer, where there is already a Parodies section. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  20:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom . parodycruft Bwithh 23:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as excessive Buffycruft. Maybe a mention can be added to the Buffy the Vampire Slayer article. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 00:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, this is a renomination that was just discussed less than a week ago. Articles for deletion/Buffy the Vampire Layer had half a dozen editors arguing to merge these articles here, and not delete them. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: No, it's not a renomination. This article didn't even exist when the nomination you're talking about was made. And, besides, the copyvio problem would be cause for deletion alone, and that wasn't discussed before. The one guy who writes all the Buffyporn articles has been adding extra copies of "his" "work" under different headings. VivianDarkbloom 19:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Re: Comment Actually I created the articles about Buffy adult parodies, and rather than expanding as implied above, I took on board comments from VivianDarkbloom and reduced the number of articles (to only a single article: the one up for deletion; Buffy the Vampire Slayer adult parodies). -- Boffy Layer 20:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep: Because this article did exist less than 24 hours after "Buffy the Vampire Layer", was up for deletion at Afd: Buffy Layer and there was already a general concensus for several days at that deletion forum to keep the merged article. -- Boffy Layer 20:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is not exactly a re-nomination; in the previous case, people were expressing a desire that the individual film not have an article, but this was not created as a result of the debate, just during it. However, (1) I found very limited copyright problems, and fixed them, so that should no longer be an issue, but (2) this article is actually pretty good, and it's not cruft at all, but rather a fleshed-out list of examples of adult parodies of Buffy.  Actually interesting; much more so than the endless books and episode articles.  Plus, this article is very new, and can probably continue to be improved.  Mango juice talk 20:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've carefully looked at the article and it's sources and come to the conclusion that the article is well written - more so than most articles on Wikipedia. Therefore I'm a little puzzled that it's even up for deletion apart from the fact it includes adult content? -- Buffyverse 20:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Majin Gojira 21:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The author for this article has clearly put a lot of work into this article resulting in the parodies being verifiable. Furthermore I see no original research, and I see a neutral point of view. When the article is not breaking anything in the official "WP:Deletion policy" isn't it unfair and against WP policy to delete it because some view it as 'cruft'? -- Paxomen 23:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Paxomen's above comment. -- gtdp (T)/(C) 16:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete wikipedia is not a porn directory.--Peta 09:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually you won't find that over at 'What Wikipedia is not'. You will instead find the official policy, Wikipedia is not censored. It includes this text: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive.. Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users or adhere to specific social or religious norms or requirements. While obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site) is usually removed immediately, some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the article about pornography.." -- Buffyverse 12:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't care if it is porn or not, its the fact it is a crufty list. The buffy editors need to get their own wiki like the star wars and star trek guys did - this kind of stuff is not encyclopedic.--Peta 12:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not that interested in many of the science articles on Wikipedia, but I'm not gonna suggest the Science editors get their own Wiki instead. In its ambitious mission of documenting the sum of all human knowledge, what is 'not encyclopedic'? My understanding of Wiki is that non-encyclopdic articles are the ones that do not follow the 3 core policies (verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view), or articles that are listed on WP:Not; the deletion policy says as much: "All text created in the Wikipedia main namespace is subject to several important rules covering criteria for articles (What Wikipedia is not), encyclopedic quality (verifiability and original research), editorial approach (neutral point of view), as well as the Wikipedia copyright policy. Articles and text which are capable of meeting these should usually be remedied by editing" and advises that articles that are not fulfilling these official policies are instead deleted. Also the deletion guidelines for admins advises that "the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines".


 * Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia meaning it doesn't have the same kind of practical limits but, also that it does not have have to cover topics that are tradiationally seen as 'academic'. Wikipedia does not rely on peer-reviewing, and it is not made just for academics, that's why it can cover almost anything including popular culture and even pornography (in this case the article draws from both). That's why the front page can even feature an article about a fictional food product made from alien worm-like creatures. Yet so many continue to look down upon popular culture here trying to believe that Wikipedia is a professional encyclopedia that shouldn't be dealing with such matters of 'cruft'. However IMO part of the appeal of this encyclopedia is that it has the ability to overcome the idea that knowledge can be monopolised (by religious orders, governments, academia..). Having read the article and through the comments on this page, I see only 3 reasons people have voted 'delete': First, because they were influenced by the nominator's accusations before I responded to such accusations. Second, because the article references pornography. Third, because the article is not of interest to them because they are uninterested in Buffy. In conclusion, there is no real basis for the deletion. And IMHO it's actually better-cited and better-written than most articles here. -- Boffy Layer 19:15, 3 August 2006 (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.