Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trio (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)

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. Missvain (talk) 23:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trio (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)

[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)

An overly detailed article about a non-notable topic with no sources. The entire article is likely WP:OR and belongs on a fan site, not an encyclopedia. Furthermore, each one of these characters already have their own articles (which probably should be deleted too). Rusf10 (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Found this Vulture feature mainly about the trio. Pieces about the show's sixth season, such as from Digital Spy, Vanity Fair and Junkee, make the trio a frequent point of discussion; the Junkee source even highlights the trio as making the season bad "for a punishing misogyny", and discuss this problem and the Trio overall for four paragraphs!!! Another Vulture piece doesn't discuss it as much, but still makes a significant claim about the Trio being an example of the season's controversial misogyny, which in turn was one the show creator's most notorious moments in entertainment history. One paragraph in this review criticizes the Trio. Their presence in the show is also heavily analyzed in academic literature, such as [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], and a lot more analyzed for the character's outsiderness among many other things. The article needs to be WP:TNT'd so that it's not just a character summary you can find on a wiki, and also so these reliable sources are incorporated. However, this is a notable topic so it should be kept. 👨x🐱 (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll also alternatively recommend to merge in the article about the show's sixth season, if it is not WP:TOOBIG to fit, that is. 👨x🐱 (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - HumanxAnthro, Just a comment that you invoke TNT and that says 'delete' with no prejudice to recreation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wait, that term means delete? I thought it was a term to just start over writing an article entirely. Well, thanks for letting me know. 👨x🐱 (talk) 11:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - HumanxAnthro, Over-writing an article entirely is no different from deleting it and writing a new one. The only difference is whether we have a crappy placeholder in the meantime or not. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, it doesn't. Deletion and creating something anew removes an edit history. Rewriting keeps an edit history, from which verifiable content can be resurrected if sourced. The abovegiven idea that rewriting from scratch is the same as deletion is false. That said, I recommend not using the silly jargon terms and shortcuts as if they were words, and instead describing things in terms of real actions: rewrite, delete, and suchlike. Uncle G (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an AfD outcome, but I have no objection to an appropriate merge to BtVS S6, which is an appropriate parent topic. At least, this article should be a WP:SS subordinate to the S6 article, because the group only exists as "the trio" within S6.
- Also, Rusf10 while it may seem like an inordinate amount of articles exist around the Buffyverse, that's in part because of Slayage so that pretty much every fictional element down to Miss Kitty Fantastico has someone who's written at least one peer-reviewed article discussing it, if not two. Jclemens (talk) 05:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Draftify per WP:TNT. Although sources may exist, there is nothing even remotely well written enough in this article to be worth keeping - any future iteration of this article would require a substantive rewrite. I would also like the point out that all three members of the Trio already have their own articles, which although also in poor condition are at least in better shape than this one. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 14:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete given the terrible state of the article - unreferneced plotcruft. WP:TNT-case. If someone improves this now, with reception section and so on, ping me and I'll reconsider my vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Secondary sources have be found that show that the topic meets WP:GNG. Of course the article needs a lot of improvement. Is everything currently in it useless? It is extensive, unsourced plot-summary. That would need to be trimmed and sourced (although primary sources are in many parts already given in the text, just not as citations), but plot-summary would still be part of a good article about the topic. So in my opinion, it can be improved by editing and is therefore not a case of WP:TNT. If someone prefers to build the article from the ground up rather than incrementally improving it, writing a draft and then replacing the current content is a possible way to go. In the meantime, if anyone is interested in the topic, they are better of with the version we have now than with no version. Daranios (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Definitely on board with the TNT the current mess opinion. I don't really know if this actually needs an article from a content management standpoint. If the three character articles are independently notable and remain, then there's no particular need for the grouping to have more than a summary on the character list/season article as suggested above. You'd need maybe two paragraphs of plot content for context, and that can easily be handled within the three character articles/season article/character list. If the three characters are not independently notable but have a couple sources each, then you might be able to form something decent by merging the four together. The article as it stands is unworkable plot summary that should be completely removed. It'd be harder for someone to edit it into anything manageable than it would be just to start from scratch. TTN (talk) 02:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has coverage in reliable sources.★Trekker (talk) 10:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- *Treker, Which ones? None have been added to the article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The ones I brought up in this discussion. 👨x🐱 (talk) 11:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - HumanxAnthro, Given your findings, how about spending 15m adding a summary of them to the article? Then I might be tempted to withdraw my delete vote, or even change it to keep. Everyone wins, including the readers. How does this sound? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - I could, but that requires interpreting what's in the academic literature, and they write in such a needlessly complicated way it would take forever away. Delete if this is a big deal, but I'm here to proof the talk page. Even if the article is deleted, we're not really losing much and we can always re-write the article with the sources I provided in the future. 👨x🐱 (talk) 11:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NEXIST, Piotrus, and you know better. Jclemens (talk) 00:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Buffy the Vampire Slayer (season 6)#Plot. The above sources do not cover this topic as independently notable from season six. All discussion of this plot element are confined to in-universe discussion of season six. Thus the best course of action is to cover within the existing season six article in summary style. Nothing sourced to merge. czar 06:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge' Without any reliable sources or out of universe information, current article serves no purpose. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable as there are lots of sources, as discussed above. WP:TNT is neither policy nor guideline. The actual policies are WP:ATD and WP:IMPERFECT which state that "Perfection is not required ... Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. ... If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 08:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew Davidson. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources linked in AFD, although agree with skeptics that they should be integrated into the article. Buffy is an unusually well-covered show with lots of proper academic journal articles and the like; even if sources had been spottier, it'd have been quite reasonable to assume that such sources did exist, and deletion is not cleanup. Agree that lots of the article is currently a plot summary, but it seems very reasonable to assume that a sourced reception section is writable here. SnowFire (talk) 04:45, 26 May 2021 (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.