Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buffy the Vampire Slayer in popular culture


 * 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 per extensive improvements. Bearian (talk) 01:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Buffy the Vampire Slayer in popular culture

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Another pure WP:TRIVIA page that has no notability on its own. Any of actual significance belong in the main Buffy the Vampire Slayer article. This is not an appropriate sub-page (if that's its reason for being). AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete "In popular culture" is usually a red flag, meaning "list of every possible trivial mention that ever existed". Here that's no exception. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - "Somebody said Buffy this one time on TV" is not a basis for an encyclopedic article. This is a trivial collection of things that have absolutely no relationship to one another beyond that they have mentioned Buffy to a greater or lesser degree. Otto4711 (talk) 02:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Hammer and Otto above. Deor (talk) 02:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * weak keep A number of these are well-sourced and don't involve OR. For example the New Scientist article is explicitly talking about someone else referencing Buffy. So there's no fundamental policy issue with this list. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete A number of them might be sourced, but a number of them seem to be OR too. Also, this is way too trivial for wikipedia. Undeath (talk) 03:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Calling it "too trivial" is essentiallyjust WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And OR can be removed so that's not a real objection. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No calling it too trivial means just that: the information is trivial in nature. Undeath (talk) 06:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:IDONTLIKEIT: ...some editors hate trivia, but what constitutes trivia is a subjective opinion and as things stand there is no concrete policy setting down what is and is not trivial, nor is there a policy stating that trivia should be deleted.. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Some of the sourced entries under "Sketch shows" may be of interest (i.e. weak merge) but offer no analysis why they are significant. The others are Original Research or trivial. – sgeureka t•c 09:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into the main Buffy the Vampire Slayer article or keep and transform it to a list article if necessary for length considerations. This information is cited and does not need to be deleted from the encyclopedia.  Ursasapien (talk) 10:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Correction: There are 14 citations, two of which are in the lead. Everything is not cited...most of it is not cited. AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The nomination is incorrect as the material is not miscellaneous but has a specific focus - parodies and other derivative works. The main article is already 75K and so this material should not be merged there per WP:SIZE. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete essentially a big trashbin of trivia. Example: "During the prom in the second season finale of South of Nowhere, Ashley remarks, "Come on, let's go before the Hellmouth opens.""  Trivia secyions are discouraged in articles and even worse when they *are* the whole article. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read the WP:TRIVIA guideline that you cite:
 * ''There are a number of pervasive misunderstandings about this guideline and the course of action it suggests:


 * ''This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all.


 * ''This guideline does not suggest always avoiding lists in favor of prose. Some information is better presented in list format.


 * ''This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by content policies.


 * Colonel Warden (talk) 15:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. I know there was a crusade against "in popular culture" articles last year, but Buffy is widely considered a very influential series and the material here moves it out of the trivia (which by definition is a list of unconnected miscallany, which this is not). If there's an issue with sources (I still don't get how a TV episode that can be verified by viewing is any different than a magazine article or book that is verified by reading) that's a content issue, not an AFD issue. 23skidoo (talk) 15:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep this appropriate, discriminate, and encyclopedic article. Passes WP:TRIVIA.  An WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination, too.  Finally, the topic even served as the focus of a course at the University of California, San Diego (Popular Culture in Critical Perspective: Buffy the Vampire Slayer) and in an academic study (Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Philosophy: Fear and Trembling in Sunnydale (Popular Culture and Philosophy)).  See also Frustrating Female Heroism: Mixed Messages in Xena, Nikita, and Buffy. By: MAGOULICK, MARY. Journal of Popular Culture, Oct2006, Vol. 39 Issue 5, p729-755, 27p; DOI: 10.1111/j.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm fairly certain that you really don't see the irrelevance of the stuff you're citing to the topic of this article. And that's scary. Deor (talk) 01:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing to be scared about (although the show is about vampires). It has been covered in popular culture journals: Rebecca Housel, "Review of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Philosophy: Fear and Trembling in Sunnydale," Journal of Popular Culture 37.4 (May 2004): 727-729; Frances H. Early, "Staking Her Claim: Buffy the Vampire Slayer as Transgressive Woman Warrior," Journal of Popular Culture 35.3 (Winter 2001): 11; Mary Kirby-Diaz, "Blood Relations: Chosen Families in Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel by Jes Battis," Journal of Popular Culture 39.5 (Oct. 2006): 907-908; Mary Magoulick, "Frustrating Female Heroism: Mixed Messages in Xena, Nikita, and Buffy," Journal of Popular Culture 39.5 (Oct., 2006): 729-755; Sabrina Ramet, "Fighting the Forces: What's at Stake in Buffy the Vampire Slayer," Journal of Popular Culture 39.2 (Apr. 2006): 338-340; James B. South, "“All Torment, Trouble, Wonder, and Amazement Inhabits Here”: The Vicissitudes of Technology in Buffy the Vampire Slayer," Journal of American & Comparative Cultures 24.1/2 (Spring/Summer 2001): 93-102; Terry L. Spaise, "Necrophilia and SM: The Deviant Side of Buffy the Vampire Slayer," Journal of Popular Culture 38.4 (May 2005): 744-762; Susan Clerc, "Review of Slayer Slang: A Buffy the Vampire Slayer Lexicon," Journal of Popular Culture 38.2 (Nov 2004): 427-428; etc. and we can and should use these sources to revise the article accordingly.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles (talk • contribs) 02:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep After doing some cleanup on the article and removing some less notable items, the article is sufficiently well focused to demonstrate the shows significant popular influence. And as others have pointed out, WP:TRIV is a style guide, not a content guide, and does not include criteria for removal. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 16:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Sure, there is some junk in this article, but per "In popular culture" articles (which covers this article, not WP:TRIVA there are also sources for some of the things mentioned in the article, so it should be kept. SirBob42 (talk) 17:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's an essay...not a guideline nor a policy. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, but clean up and improve refs. Parodies and spoofs of Buffy should be regarded as notable; brief glimpses or mentions in some comic, tv show, film etc. should be regarded as trivia and removed. I'm glad to see that some improvements have already been made to this artice, but it still needs more. PC78 (talk) 20:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - while the New Scientist article mentions Buffy, creating a list of mentions of Buffy doesn't constitute an encyclopedia article. Addhoc (talk) 23:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, at the end of the day, everything on Wikipedia is trivia so that's not a valid reason for deletion. This is too long to merge into the main article, and it looks like an okay sub-article per summary style. It has plenty of citations. --Pixelface (talk) 01:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.   —Pixelface (talk) 02:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   —Pixelface (talk) 02:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Another barely-disguised WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination.   WP:TRIVIA does not in any way advocate the deletion of "popular culture" lists or articles, and in fact explicitly excludes them when focused, organized, and sourced.  It's bad enough to wikilawyer policy, but it's utterly audacious to pretend that policy supports what you're saying when it doesn't. --Father Goose (talk) 02:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is also totally unnotable on its own, but I guess you missed that it was part of the nomination. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject from WP:N and Buffy the Vampire Slayer in popular_culture make your claim of it being "totally unnotable" unconvincing.--Father Goose (talk) 04:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I crossed out the more invective parts of my earlier post. I apologize, but I get very frustrated when I see issues deserving editorial attention shuttled to AfD instead.--Father Goose (talk) 02:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep These entries are well sourced, and buffy was a popular show which deserves its own pop culture article. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 02:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - has 3d party refs and would be too big if merged into main Buffy article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep a good example of a _____ in popular culture article that has reliable sources and is sufficiently important. &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 03:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - One of the better-referenced pop. culture articles. The deletes seem to generally be citing content issues, which can be cleaned up with some work.  ◄   Zahakiel   ►  21:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep No reason given for deletion. The consensus has repeatedly been that the use of a notable character in notable fictions is worthy of an encyclopedia article, and the individual items are sourced as plots and characters are  by the works themselves. Additional references and discussion is of course desirable, but not critical to keeping the article. It's been a long time since we've had one of these challenged. DGG (talk) 03:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Conditional Keep because there are numerous popular culture resources to write prose. However, the "References in other works of fiction" section is purely trivia and needs to be completely replaced by the academic resources.  Such random bits, like passing quotes and background screenings, don't contribute to the topic at all. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 19:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There are many who beg to differ with that opinion. Such lists serve to document the specific influence the subject has had on popular culture.--Father Goose (talk) 00:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Saying that a particular topic was briefly mentioned in another topic doesn't convey any kind of notion. If there are female characters written to be based on Buffy the Vampire Slayer, or the themes of the show have influenced other shows' themes, that's worth noting.  However, listing every example of popular culture permeation can be indiscriminate.  Why does every specific instance need to be outlined?  Why can't it be said, "This topic appeared in television, film, and comics" and be done with it?  Identifying a particular incarnation has no inherent value.  It's essentially trivia.  A lot of popular culture articles have been like this, and I think that the resources available for this particular topic gives this article an opportunity to provide content worthy of encyclopedia. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 01:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) The problem is that (now, since Le Grand Roi has taken it in hand) the article is "about" two different things. The links in the lead and the sources cited in notes 1–7 all seem to be about how cultural topics are reflected in BtVS itself, whereas the list of which the article mainly consists deals with references to BtVS in other works of pop culture. Erik is quite right that there's a problem here. In its current state the article is schizophrenic; many of the sources—and some of the prose—deal with matters other than what the title and list suggest. If this is to be an article about cultural aspects of the show, the list needs to go. If it's to be about "Buffy the Vampire Slayer in popular culture," the phony sources need to go (along with the whole article, in my opinion). Deor (talk) 01:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no reason why the article can't be about both, i.e. have a text segment that covers the topics place in popular culture while having a list demonstrating it's notability and influence. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 07:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I would add that if the article is taken in the direction indicated by Le Grand Roi's "references," it becomes essentially a redundant topic fork of the existing article Buffy studies. Deor (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if that were the case and after all I agree that article should keep the in popular culture list section that demonstrates its influence and is easily verifiable than we would end up with a merge and redirect without deletion. There's no scenario in which outright deletion makes sense here.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sez you. Deor (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I say that, along with what looks like 13 others arguing to keep this article as well as several editors who saw fit to volunteer their time to work on improving this article over the past several months. Sincerley, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Article is viewed 1500-2000 times a month.Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 07:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree that this aspires to trivia, masquerading as encyclopedic content. Sourcing trivia still makes it trivia. Eusebeus (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if that were the case (which it isn't because academic journal articles have covered Buffy the Vampie Slayer in popular culture), trivia is encyclopedic. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And more to the point, I'm not sure how pointing to a Manual of Style guideline supports your vote for deletion. WP:TRIVIA is a style guideline, it is not a content guideline. Could you explain your vote please? -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 19:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, changing from "Conditional Keep", since the academic sources uncovered can belong at Buffy studies. With the sources belonging in a more specific place, the indiscriminate listing of unimportant mentions of a certain topic in the realm of popular culture is just trivia. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 22:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The list is actually discriminate. It only lists places in which Buffy the Vampie Slayer appear in popular culture and thereby inidcates her influence.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Her influence in what way? That she's popular?  "Buffy the Vampire Slayer has been mentioned in passing in other television shows and films."  Done.  There's no need for indiscriminate specifics.  Knowing that a character on an unrelated TV show mentions Buffy means nothing on the surface.  We can all read different kinds of importance for various bits of information, but the lack of secondary sourcing surrounding any particular reference makes the information unimportant.  The references that can be added to Buffy studies would be far more substantial. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 00:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a neeed for this discriminate list in that it demonstrates how she has been received in popular culture and in what context. Anything can be interpreted differently by different people, but that does not negate it's value as a reference item for someone cundicting research on this topic.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * None of the references say anything about how she has been received. If we analyze the purpose of a reference, such as saying that Buffy was mentioned here because a character was implying the need for the presence of a strong female character, that's going to be original research.  We don't go that far, but we just push a lot of trivia forward and say that there is something worth reading into it when there's no secondary sourcing that does so.  If there's a reference in popular culture that comes up, there is usually a topic of established notability that can be explored.  Here, passing examples are being pushed forward with no interwoven importance.  Repeating example after example of a part of popular culture found in the rest of popular culture with zero insight provided is indiscriminate and trivial. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 01:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Original research makes some kind of an argument. I don't see a discriminate list as an original thesis.  Plus, trivia is encyclopedic.  If someone took the time to write the article, others in good faith developed it, and still others believe it should be kept, it is obviously important enough to a respectable number of editors and readers and so we gain nothing by removing it.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We'll have to agree to disagree... I don't think we're going to change each other's minds anytime soon. :) I would have to argue that Wikipedia is not the place for everything, and there are Wikias that are far more suitable for certain information than others.  Perhaps we need a Wikiquote-like Wikitrivia where little bits of information can go unimportant, unsorted and unrestrained by encyclopedic boundaries. :-P  I bid thee adieu, and hopefully the next time we talk will be in agreement, like with that rare encounter regarding Weapons of Resident Evil 4. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 01:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it is good that we were able to agree in at least that discussion and I am not opposed to the creation of something coherent and easy enough to find that somehow preserves this content. Have a pleasant night!  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Promising lead section followed by an article of trivia. There's way too much Buffy fancruft on Wikipedia and this is an example of that.  I love the show with a fiery passion, and I'm not questioning it's notability, but surely the important stuff can be covered elsewhere, like Erik suggested?     Paul    730  00:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * An online paperless encyclopedia cannot have "too much" stuff so long as its encyclopedic and I believe the topic has been proven encyclopedic. If it's a matter of duplicate coverage in another article, then the decision would be a merge and redirect without deletion.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It becomes too much stuff when a notable topic is stretched thin across lots of articles when it could and should be covered tidily on a single article. We do not need an article listing all the times words like "Buffy" and "Hellmouth" were mentioned in other shows.  It's trivial and unnecessary.  An article covering Buffy's actual role in pop culture (that would be third party sources discussing it's influence on feminism in fiction or something, not "Oh, the word Buffy was mentioned in Smallville") would be completely acceptable in my eyes, but because the shows is so popular amongst Wikipedia editors, they seem to think we need separate articles for everything.  Regardless, this article is trivial.  What enyclopedic purpose do sentences like "In the Charmed episode "The Power of Two", Phoebe Halliwell says the line, "Where's Buffy when you need her?" when they are in a cemetery." actually serve?  Where's the source discussing how Charmed was influenced by Buffy?  It's a minor reference, given undue weight, and utterly pointless on this website.    Paul    730  00:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If editors are willing to write this article, work on it, and readers are interested in it then it is neither trivial nor unnecessary. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In responce to Paul730's comment, I have removed a few of the more tangential Buffy mentions. I still think this article should be kept, and if it is kept, then this article should only contain strong examples. It's true that we don't need _every_ mention of the word "Buffy", but doing the opposite and having absolutely none is perhaps a little short sighted. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 01:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (EC)See WP:ILIKEIT, since other editors here are so quick to quote WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a Buffy pop culture/academic study article but we certainly don't two of them, once of which is just trivia. A random quote from some show has no context, no purpose, it's just a quote.  Also, there's some serious OR problems as well.  How do we know such-and-such "Buffy" reference was actually about the show?  Maybe they just thought the name was funny, if we have no sources we can't jump to conclusions.  I'm not opposed to covering things like Robot Chicken appearances somewhere but even they could probably be covered at the main BtVS article.  It's not like this article has galleons of substantial content that really needs it's own page.  I'd be willing to change my vote to merge.     Paul    730  01:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that "I like it" (a positive, versus "I don't like it," which is negative) is necessarily a bad argument as we have fundraisers on Wikipedia so we need articles that editors like and therefore want to contribute to and/or read in order for them to feel donating is worthwhile. Besides, trivia is encyclopedic.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:30, 6 March 2008 (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.