Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buffy the Vampire Slayer and social issues


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Buffy the Vampire Slayer and social issues
Original research, fancruft masquerading as an academic essay. Brian G. Crawford 00:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - it starts out quasi-all-right, being quite heavily sourced, but then goes downhill and has plenty of OR-looking sections. I think it's a niche but weak-keepable article if non-sourced sections are removed. -- Mithent 01:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete fancrufty, WP:NOR violated. More like a non-academic essay masquerading as "research" if you ask me. M1ss1ontomars2k4 01:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and WP:NOT. OR is OR is OR, however masqueraded, and I can't figure how an essay like this will be anything other than, well, an essay.  RGTraynor 04:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per RGTraynor.  Ardenn  04:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as clear violation of NOR. TheProject 04:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, original research. --Ter e nce Ong 05:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-verified original research. J I P  | Talk 09:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I disagree with Mithent: even if it were 100% verifiable it would still be fancruft and not encyclopaedic. Take it to Wikicities, where it will be fine. Just zis Guy you know? 09:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - original research, brought to you by Too Much Time On Someone's Hands Syndrome. Vizjim 09:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * DeleteMaybe rewrite it, then merge it. Jared W 11:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. DarthVad e r 11:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. Bucketsofg✐ 14:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Original research and fancruft. WP:NOT Beno1000 14:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete for reasons above. PJM 15:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 16:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Totally OR. As Vizjim says, the creator had way too much time to kill & came up with this. --Srik e it ( talk ¦  ✉  )  16:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not encyclopaedic. Zaxem 17:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment There's no need to be so critical of the original contributor's motivations, he said on the talk page he wrote the article when he was new to Wikipedia and wasn't clear on how we work, and even added an OR tag himself. Is there any way to incorporate the sourced material back into the main article?--Cúchullain t/ c  20:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Cuchullain is right, we all donate time here aside from work or school to write about things we're not forced to write about. Nor is it necessary to have a big line of delete votes.  A consensus would have been established with a handful, given that no one has cast a contradictory vote. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - he should put it on a free web server. - Richardcavell 22:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - original research and analysis, non-encyclopedic. Perhaps individual little bits of verifiable material could go into the seperate articles, but mostly I don't think it belongs here. Matt 10:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: OR -- getcrunk   juice  contribs 19:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: Original research. I think it is a good essay and I hope someone saves/republishes it in some form, but not here. BarkingDoc 23:30, 7 May 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.