Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unaired Buffy the Vampire Slayer pilot


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Unaired Buffy the Vampire Slayer pilot

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Not notable. The pilot has never been officially released, meaning that the plot synopsis fails WP:V. The sources given are IMDb, a fansite, and a passing mention in the context of something else. I could find no better sources. Redirect contested without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment this is episode 0 of one of the most popular TV shows of all time, are you sure you want to bring it to AfD without a WP:BEFORE? Artw (talk) 22:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I did, and all I found were clickbait listicles from unreliable sources, fandom wikis, Reddit, and bootlegs of the pilot. Nothing seemed to stem from a reliable source. Even the most popular shows get pilots, but if those pilots are not formally seen by anyone -- which this one wasn't -- then it's hard for them to build notability. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you are "mistaken". Artw (talk)
 * Keep Article on Huffpost, Screen Rant Yet another AfD nomination without a WP:BEFORE being done. So time consuming saving these types of articles from deletionists.  Donald D23   talk to me  22:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Is Screen Rant reliable, though? That looks like a clickbait listicle with no journalistic merit. Everything else I found in a WP:BEFORE looked completely unreliable. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ETA: These two RSN discussions cast doubt on Screen Rant's reliability, with the latter loosely agreeing to my perception of Screen Rant as a "churnalism" site. WP:TVRS doesn't mention it either way. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * But neither discussion rules out the use of SR, as quoted, "It's a reliable source for film material and some other material", "Reliable for attributed opinion". And its just a comparison between the aired pilot and the unaired pilot (which can be verified easily by watching the unaired pilot on YouTube. SR is reliable for this article. Donald D23   talk to me  22:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * And another article, at Mic  Donald D23   talk to me  22:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * More [] Donald D23   talk to me  22:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Have added some refs. Artw (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Are "Mic" or "Screen Rant" reliable sources? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * For this? I see absolutely no reason why they wouldn't be, so yes. Artw (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Not official being released means nothing, it's out there and it and the plot have been covered by sources. Huffpost above, in this book with 2/3 notable co-authors Lawrence Miles, Lars Pearson. Other books out there with minor coverage on GBooks. Gizmodo coverage. WP:GNG passes. WikiVirusC (talk) 23:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Artw (talk) 00:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep HuffPost, Mic, Gizmodo, and the book mentioned above together provide enough coverage and are suitably reliable for the subject area. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep As XOR'easter said, this clearly meets the general notability guidelines. So many articles like this redirected at once by the same guy, I wonder how many others could be saved by simply following WP:BEFORE.   D r e a m Focus  00:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Multiple independent RS's document it in non-trivial detail. Jclemens (talk) 01:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Multiple independent Reliable Sources. I'm confused by the nominator's comment "The pilot has never been officially released, meaning that the plot synopsis fails WP:V".  Surely the whole point of our policies is that independent reliable sources are used and we don't just watch the episode and write a summary as this would be original research.  Maybe I'm misunderstanding the point? RicDod (talk) 13:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, never aired but analysed beyond death by reliable sources. Pika voom  Talk 12:58, 20 June 2022 (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.