Anointed One (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) : Article has been unreferenced since its creation in 2004.  Article was redirected to a character list in 2022 but the action was reverted.  A "sources exist" tag was added but I haven't found those sources.  There's Screenrant articles: [9] , [10] but Valnet sites aren't considered reliable sources.  Mika1h ( talk ) 14:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions .  Mika1h ( talk ) 14:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  Mika1h ( talk ) 14:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep - there's a lot of brief coverage indexed by Google Scholar in contexts where this subject is analyzed alongside the symbolism of other elements of Buffy.  The Girl's Got Bite: The Original Unauthorized Guide to Buffy's World appears to have the most coverage, but there's other examples as well (e.g. [11] ).  The preview for Celluloid Vampires on Google Scholar also looks promising, although I'm unable to access it.  signed, Rosguill talk 14:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I feel it's worth pinging @ Rosguill , who added the sources exist tag, and @ Randy Kryn , who reverted the merge, to potentially see what their thoughts are.  If either happens to have the sources on them, then that would be a big help to improving the article and avoiding its deletion.  In the article's current state, I'd definitely argued for a redirect .  Valnet sources aren't unreliable, but they aren't exactly what you build an article on, and the nominator's BEFORE doesn't seem to have born much fruit.  If any significant sources are discovered verifying notability, ping me and I'll reconsider my vote.  As it stands now, it's small and entirely unsourced, and thus there's nothing to merge nor is there nothing really worth keeping here.  Has one ever considered Magneton?  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 14:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh Rosguill replied while I was typing.  Sorry about the extra ping, mate.  I'm unable to access Celluloid Vampires, so I can't speak on that one, but the first source has some bits, though Source 3 looks a bit weak, albeit usable.  It might be enough, but I can't speak for certain yet given I can't access everything these have to say.  Has one ever considered Magneton?  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 14:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Changing my vote to merge .  The sources provided appear relatively small, and given the character's minor role, do not seem to illustrate that there is enough coverage to warrant a separate article when the character list can easily cover the analysis the characters does have.  Has one ever considered Magneton?  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 17:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Week keep As has been said, "but Valnet sites aren't considered reliable sources" is not consenus throughout.  Screen Rant specifically " is considered reliable for entertainment-related topics, but should not be used for controversial statements related to living persons. " As this is an entertainment-related topic and not about a living person, Screen Rant is considered reliable.  There is also brief commentary on the biblical nature of the name in The Afterlife of Genre: Remnants of the Trauerspiel in Buffy the Vampire Slayer , p. 18 and Slayer Slang: A Buffy the Vampire Slayer Lexicon , p. 15-16.   So the suggested sources collectively are enough to establish notability for my part.  While it is unfortunate that those secondary sources have not yet been added, this is not grounds for deletion .  Daranios ( talk ) 16:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Screen Rant is a low-quality source whose uses on Wikipedia are limited.  It is reliable enough for straightforward statements of fact within its area of competency (entertainment, roughly speaking), but not for anything remotely controversial, WP:BLP material, or any kind of analysis.  It is likewise not a source to be used for establishing WP:Notability or assessing WP:Due weight .  TompaDompa ( talk ) 06:35, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm sorry, could you point to the WP:RSP entry and show me where it says that Screen Rant is not usable for analysis or notability?  I certainly don't see it there, and I am sure we would both hate for people to confuse opinion with consensus.  Jclemens ( talk ) 22:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Of course I can't point you to where it says that on the WP:RSP entry; that's not what WP:RSP is for.  But I can point you to discussions on what Screen Rant is suitable for, including WT:FAC#Would these pass a source review?  and Talk:Priscilla (film)#Vandalism .  TompaDompa ( talk ) 22:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] So, two discussions for specific occasions, without any wider input, admin finding of general applicability, or posting to any place with multiple eyes and routine referencing for the output of such decisions?  That's fine... but it doesn't trump what RSP says.  And to the second point, yes, that's precisely how RSP is used when such a determination has been made, e.g. WP:THESUN which notes References from The Sun are actively discouraged [...] and they should not be used for determining the notability of any subject.  Jclemens ( talk ) 05:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'll admit that I'm somewhat surprised at the number of sources listed at WP:RSP where there are explicit mentions of whether they can be used for establishing notability, but what I said it that it's not what it's for—what it's for is listing whether they are reliable, which is a different question.  It's also worth noting that WP:RSP links to WP:VGRS#Valnet , which says In general, these sites should not be used to demonstrate notability outside of periods they were considered reliable or prior to being purchased by Valnet, due to concerns over undue weight and content farming .  ( Screen Rant was purchased by Valnet in 2015, according to our article).  Using Screen Rant for establishing notability is at best questionable, seeing as it was seen as "marginally reliable" and its use for establishing notability was not discussed in the 2021 RfC that designated it as such (though it was at the most recent of the dicussions listed at WP:VGRS ).  It's not like its standing has improved.  TompaDompa ( talk ) 06:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] So, we're back to a specific case (Screen Rant) being at odds with the general case (Valnet sites).  In other such discussions, the specific guidance is usually seen as normative.  I think we understand each other and I have nothing further substantive to say on this.  Cheers, Jclemens ( talk ) 06:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure I understand your position.  I've gone in the record as saying Screen Rant is a low-quality source whose uses on Wikipedia are limited.  It is reliable enough for straightforward statements of fact within its area of competency (entertainment, roughly speaking), but not for anything remotely controversial, WP:BLP material, or any kind of analysis.  It is likewise not a source to be used for establishing WP:Notability or assessing WP:Due weight .  I stand by that.  Do you want to go on the record as disagreeing with that assessment, or did you just want to talk about the bureaucratic aspect?  TompaDompa ( talk ) 07:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as an AfD outcome, per the above sourcing.  Buffy and all related topics have been so over-studied by academics even the most lame related topics seem to have GScholar hits.  Having said that, a merge discussion might identify this as a NOPAGE situation.  That is, this character is basically a MacGuffin with no particular development compared to the series' other antagonists, and had no recurring appearances, e.g. First Evil never manifested as him.  Covering him in a character list or Buffy the Vampire Slayer (season 1) wouldn't be a terrible outcome, but sourcing this is at least as plausible, and deletion is right out.  Jclemens ( talk ) 20:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I was going to initially vote "Merge" when I looked at the article, but upon seeing the sources supplied by Rosguill, the sources show that the subject does meet notability standards and thus qualifies for an independent article.  I think then afterwards, when the page is improved, there should be a discussion about whether to merge it, but I do not think it should be deleted, even though the article needs work and sources.  DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 06:22, 4 February 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.

Discussion outcome: keep