Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Undeveloped Buffy the Vampire Slayer spinoffs

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 per near-unanimity of responses (non-admin closure). Sole delete preference was WP:PERNOM, topic has non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Skomorokh 23:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undeveloped Buffy the Vampire Slayer spinoffs

Fails WP:FICT as these are all proposed spin-offs that never were actually developed. Seems more a page for rumors and what ifs than encyclopedic content. Mostly sourced from various Buffy fansites and other unreliable sources. The two notable ones already have main articles that could be mentioned in summary style in the main Buffy article without this extra step. Collectonian (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons mentioned above - Chardish (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while there are some sources to fansites which should be better-sourced if possible, sourcing also includes such solidly reliable sources as TV Guide and the BBC. I don't agree that the article amounts to "rumors and what ifs." Otto4711 (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only part sourced from TV Guide is the Spike movie, which would be better served as being a short paragraph in his article as part of his reception section. Collectonian (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the parts sourced to the BBC include parts of the Ripper section and the SLayer School section. Other sources seem reasonably reliable as well. Otto4711 (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be notable Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as organized, notable, and well-referenced article. The topic as a whole is covered in published sources. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is perfectly notable. Dismissing established sites that contain direct, detailed quotes from the people involved as 'unreliable' is unwarranted. These are clearly more than rumours (a significant amount of work has gone into several of the potential spinoffs).Further references could be added (e.g. today's BBC interview with Head contains a new reference to 'Ripper'). Rdwperl (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2008 (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.