Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Principal Snyder

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 redirect‎ to List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters#Supporting characters. The "keep" opinions are unpersuasive in the light of applicable policies and guidelines. Two amount to "did you search for sources", but they do not tell us which, if any, relevant sources such a search would have yielded. The third points to two documents that appear to be WP:SPS and therefore not relevant sources in the light of WP:GNG. Ultimately, nobody in this AfD is capable of citing WP:GNG-compliant sources to support this article's inclusion. Sandstein 06:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Principal Snyder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This Buffy character doesn't meet WP:FICTION or WP:GNG, there is no SIGCOV of him. Everything about the character is all in universe information, to make it worse, it only sites one unreliable source. Merge or Redirect to List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters. Toby2023 (talk) 03:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep BEFORE not articulated, please search Google Scholar with the additional keyword Slayage. I see plenty peer reviewed independent RS on a cursory search which can be used to improve the article. Jclemens (talk) 06:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect (or merge) to LoC. Fails WP:NOT#PLOT and is just a supporting character. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A supporting character does not mean that they are not notable. There are some supporting characters with GAs DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect for failing WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:SIGCOV. Jontesta (talk) 14:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Did you do a search, or are you basing things on the current state of the article? Because if you did a search and found nothing, I'd like to help you improve your skills. Jclemens (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I agree that BEFORE was not articulated - I have checked online and also have seen SIGCOV that Jclemens has included.DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 15:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect or merge, per Sgeureka. What few sources provide only trivial mentions or WP:PLOT, and this doesn't pass WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the nominator has left the project after being counseled to learn how AfD works and admitting they never did a BEFORE. Right now, there's a lot of people looking at the article and saying "I don't see sources in the article, redirect it" and others saying "Sources are easy to find, I see them." Both of which are fine opinions, but the latter are less policy based, per WP:NEXIST and WP:SURMOUNTABLE--NOT#PLOT doesn't apply to an improved version of the article, and so is not a reason for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 10:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think secondary sources like "Buffy, the Scooby Gang, and Monstrous Authority: BtVS and the Subversion of Authority" and ""You're on My Campus, Buddy!" Sovereign and Disciplinary Power at Sunnydale High", while remaining close to the plot, have enough characterization and commentary of what the character represents in the series to fullfill the requirements of both WP:WHYN and WP:NOTPLOT. The nomination reads a lot like it was considering only the current state of the article, which is not decisive for the question of deletion. At least, as Jclemens already said, there is no WP:BEFORE articluated. Daranios (talk) 11:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect with no prejudice to revising my opinion if someone tries to improves this based on sources Daranios found or others, and pings me. Currently, however this fails WP:GNG, WP:V and like. Pure WP:FANCRUFT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Per WP:NEXIST a topic is notable (passes GNG) if sufficient sources exist, and nothing about copying them into the article changes that. Your opinion is not consistent with Wikipedia policy & guidelines. Jclemens (talk) 01:11, 20 December 2024 (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.