Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vengeance demon

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 delete. Sandstein 17:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vengeance demon[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. It's all WP:PLOT, so no information should be retained. TTN (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a great article, but Buffy is well-studied, and this is no exception. Some nice analysis in this peer-reviewed article and Sex and the Slayer, for example. There's plenty more out there, especially relating to Anya. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure if this is in-depth about the demons, or just uses them in passing to discuss something else (i.e. an aspect of justice system in Buffyverse). Slayage ([1]) is peer reviewed but I doubt it is taken very seriously in the field (the about page doesn't suggest it is indexed anywhere, I'll ping User:Randykitty on his take on this, it would make for a fun DYK but GNG is an issue). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, just a response to the ping by Piotrus: The journal appears to be serious: the editors and board are all legit academics and the journal is indexed in the Modern Language Association Databaseand DOAJ, which confirms that this is not a predatory journal. So while it doesn't appear to meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG, it does seem like a reliable source to me (unless somebody digs up evidence to the contrary and note that this field of study is not directly my specialty). Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor plot-cruft that fails GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note I removed the prod because shortly after it was placed, a merge discussion was started and I added to the merge discussion. The nominator should have joined the merge discussion instead of starting this one. Aspects (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated the merge target as well, as I feel neither needs to be retained on Wikipedia. TTN (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The article found by JM is a good start, but it is overall a low quality resource (at best, the very minimum when it comes to academic sources), and also a single source (GNG requires multiple) and finally, I am not convinced it is in-depth coverage of this topic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.