Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Buffyverse villains and supernatural beings


 * 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. But if the cruft is not pruned I can see the next discussion going a different way. There may be a need to discuss why we have 3 Buffy character articles. that seems at least 1 too many. Spartaz Humbug! 15:29, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

List of Buffyverse villains and supernatural beings

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is just a bare bones list of every minor creature or character in the series. It is not needed for a general encyclopedia, so it is not a proper content fork. Buffyverse seems to cover a couple more substantial ones. The topic does not establish its own notability. TTN (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Enough blue links have their own articles to make this a valid list article.  D r e a m Focus  18:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's a huge amount of scholarship on Buffy, including on it villains and the various supernatural beings. And Dream Focus's point is a good one. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Pure fancruft and Wikia material. So far, the two keep votes have not elucidated on what sources would make this list pass WP:LISTN. A list of minor villains and creatures is not notable and the blue links just point to episodes, of which this is not a list of.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep/merge We also have a merge proposed with Vengeance demon and related current AFDs for Witch (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), Big Bad, and Vengeance demon. While I agree that each of these individually are generally non-notable with only in-universe content and sourcing, but I don't think it all needs to go outright. A managed merge of these and others into this list page as well as Buffyverse could touch on each topic without so many separate fandom pages. Reywas92Talk 04:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - would like to hear more how this is a "content fork" if "it is not needed for a general encyclopedia". It either is ok for the encyclopedia and is a fork of some other article, or not needed and it isn't a fork. You can't argue both ways. Also, just as a heads up. If you keep on AfD every list of x article just because you hate these articles, I'll start blanket opposing them all. --Gonnym (talk) 09:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Forks and splits are justified as being necessary companion articles for the main article. This is used for things like character lists and episode lists, regardless if they can establish notability or not. There needs to be some kind of utility present to bypass notability guidelines. This list has no utility. It has no use to the general reader. It’s a list for fans and fans alone. That disqualifies it from being a split. TTN (talk) 11:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. I am not satisfied this goes beyond WP:TRIVIA, fails WP:LISTN. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete or keep&revise per WP:TNT. The one-time villains (~90% of the list) don't need to be mentioned at all and can go. But most villains with currently PLOT-ty stand-alone articles should probably be merged somewhere, and this page could be turned into a merge target for them and the AfDed "races". On the other hand, there already is List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters and List of minor Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters, which can also serve as merge targets. – sgeureka t•c 12:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. For my last edit of the year, I will note that this topic is the subject of published print encyclopedias and is surely worthwhile for inclusion here.  There is no legitimate benefit to this site to delete this content and keep this discussion.  What actual purpose does that serve?  The contents of this article are from a major TV and comic book franchise beloved by millions.  It brings viewers to this site (possible donors...) as well.  It can be sourced through reliable published sources, including secondary sources.  Okay, so to some who are not fans or are ignorant of it, it may seem trivial, but so what?  Keeping this improvable content is to the benefit of at least some sizable segment of this site's readership.  Deleting it doesn't do any good for anyone.  So, instead of having the article, we'd what rather have a bunch of discussions of a handful of editors debating about it over a week?  This is just baffling and bizarre.  As for the nomination of "it is not needed for a general encyclopedia", well what is "needed"?  Wikipedia is not limited in the way that traditional print encyclopedias were.  Are you also going to clear out everything from here, for example?  I suspect this fictional stuff means a lot more to a lot more people than every asteroid or minor planet out there.  For the record, neither should be deleted because isn't the point of this project to collect all the information scattered on earth and make it accessible to the masses, whether we as individuals personally are invested in any individual content or not?  I hope the nominator either finds a useful hobby or at least starts creating and adding to articles himself, because no reasonable person can take an honest look at his edit history and see anything other than boilerplate prods and afds without being suspicious that the nominator is either a bot or has some crusade going here.  It is not about assuming good faith here, either, it is apparent that the nominator's account single-purpose has always been rapid fire indiscriminate nominations of articles for deletion with no sign of actually wanting to build anything. This ant-fiction crusade that has been going for over a decade borders on unhealthy and I actually wish that the nominator can find something worthwhile and joyous to do with his life.  With that, I genuinely wish everyone a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.  Good bye for this year, though.  --199.123.13.2 (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)  blocked sock
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - Fails WP:LISTN.  Onel 5969  TT me 01:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep fulfills informational/navigation purposes WP:LISTN Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Lightburst (talk) 04:57, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per Dream Focus, but only after pruning all of the one-shot beings. That still leaves sufficient bluelinked articles for the list to work as a navigational aid. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Keep comments above. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2019 (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.