Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Buffyverse objects

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Per arguments on lack of non-trivial coverage. May be useful for the Buffy Wikia, but we don't have a template for that and I don't know any of the admins on that wiki to do an import. MBisanz talk 00:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Buffyverse objects

[edit]
List of Buffyverse objects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This is apparently a list of magical objects that occur in the "Buffyverse" wihch apparently means all writing, TV and Movies connected to buffy the vampire slayer. None of these magical fictional items have received any independent coverage and this fan-site type list of non-things should be deleted. Bali ultimate (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

why it shouldbe expanded. Because there are a multidude of other objects in the fiction. DGG (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that interpreting the primary source and slicing it into many different subjects and sub-subjects is original research. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    this is recording the obvious, not interpreting. DGG (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it obvious that these objects bear comment, and not others? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't he say the list needs to be expanded? So he feels that other objects do bear comment. What is "obvious" is that anyone viewing the published sources should be able to verify that these are significant objects within the Buffyverse. How is "interpreting ... primary source[s] and slicing [them] into many different subjects and sub-subjects" fundamentally different from "interpreting secondary sources and slicing them into many different subjects and sub-subjects"? DHowell (talk) 02:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But what he didn't do is offer any sort of reasonable criteria for a list. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is "significant objects in the Buffyverse" not a reasonable criteria? DHowell (talk) 05:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Define significant. The usual definition for "significant" in this context is "stuff for which we can find reliable sources offering significant commentary" and that is currently a null set. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The fictional works themselves are the reliable sources offering significant commentary. The third-party references show notability (maybe not notability enough for a separate article, but notability enough for a mention in a list). DHowell (talk) 06:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The works of fiction are already summarized in explicit detail elsewhere, and they aren't independent. The third-party references are not significant. Significant, independent, reliable. You need all three. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Only for independent articles on each item, not for them to appear in a list—and only according to a guideline which is subject to reasonable exceptions. And we have all three, just not all from the same source. DHowell (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, the number of significant, independent, reliable sources on the topic of random stuff in Buffy is zero, because it's not much of a topic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not "random stuff in Buffy", it's "significant objects in Buffy". And it's not zero. It may be less than what you require, but it's not zero. DHowell (talk) 06:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Significant according to whom? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:FICTION, no reliable sources Secret account 13:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "a list of objects that have appeared in the Buffyverse" seems to fail WP:N and WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." Objects which had an important role in the series deserve mention in the article about the series or the sub-articles about episodes or characters where they are important. The fact that script writers made up some term like the "Chordnash of Thagarug" does not mean that it belongs in a standalone article with all the other "Glagafarbs" and other made-up throw-away Macguffins used to move one episode along. Other than a gimmick to move the plot, they have no importance. Edison (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with a catch. The Orb of Thesulah and Gem of Amarra have received coverage in a number of books. It wouldn't be inappropriate to merge content from Orb of Thesulah into this list, much like List of minor Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters, and keep this article in preference to a few other stubs. Jclemens (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The only reference is an offhand mention of a single nitpick of a single episode in an unlicensed episode guide. That isn't substantial coverage; you can barely make one sentence of coverage of the subject from reliable sources (and I'm not entirely convinced this guide is one), and even if we did want to cover it we can already cover it in the hideously detailed article on the single episode it appears in. This is not substantial coverage in multiple, reliable sources.- A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The only reference to what? There's way more than that if you follow the Google Books search. Remember, that a mention in an independent, reliable derivative fictional work is itself evidence of notability. Jclemens (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I missed a second unlicensed episode guide that offered a single nitpick. This still isn't substantial coverage, and novels aren't reliable sources for commentary on pretty much anything. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm trying to assume good faith here, but your statement is not congruent with reality. In [1] five of the seven listed books appear to be commentaries or other non-fiction. Jclemens (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Substantial. Substantial. Substantial. Not an offhand reference in an episode summary in a work that summarizes a whole season of episodes. Substantial. Substantial. Substantial. You don't have to assume good faith, you can assume I'm a horrible ogre out to get you, but it doesn't make "Also, Spike rips the necklace off when he realizes it isn't the gem of Amarra, but in the next shot it's back on" substantial coverage. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How about you take a couple of those extra substantials and move them back to refactor your previous comments so they're actually accurate? As in "The only substantial reference is an offhand mention of a single nitpick of a single episode in an unlicensed episode guide". Wait, that doesn't work either. So sorry, I'm still at a bit of a loss to explain what you meant. I find arguing against a list by arguing against the notability of individual list members is an interesting, and possibly unproductive, per the last criteria at WP:AOAL. Jclemens (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    An offhand mention of a single nitpick etc. is not substantial. That's my point. There's no substantial coverage of these objects as a group or individually; all of the sources deal with them as minor aspects of the story not worth individual mention, and we should as well. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We're talking about a list, not an article for each individual object. Substantial coverage is required for a full article, not for a mention in a list. DHowell (talk) 02:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We're currently at zero references dealing with objects in this particular series as a whole. Anything that would go in this list is redundant with the articles on every single episode AND every single character. The potential for referenced info that belongs in this article instead of some other article is nil. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you arguing that because no single source lists all of these objects together, that neither can we? Does that rationale also apply to featured lists like List of English words containing Q not followed by U? DHowell (talk) 05:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Other stuff does indeed exist. In the meantime, this is culled from trivial references in a variety of sources which are not chiefly about this subject, or just plain old OR. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Other featured stuff exists, stuff considered the best that Wikipedia has to offer, showing that Wikipedia does not require a list of things to be sourced from a single source, but can be collected from multiple disparate sources. And here's a source which specifically talks about magical objects, and specifically references the Buffy series. DHowell (talk) 06:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you understand the point of "other stuff exists"? It means that those very different articles may be kept for very different reasons, and bringing them up, especially in an offhand way, is an obnoxious distraction tactic. Maybe it shouldn't be featured any more (it doesn't have inline refs, grouse grouse grouse). I don't know.
    That reference devotes a half-sentence to Buffy, in a way that doesn't include fully half of the items on this list. Significant, reliable, independent. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "...identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia.". The references for List of English words containing Q not followed by U also cover the subject in a way that doesn't include fully half of the items on the list. The comparison is exactly on point, not an "obnoxious distraction point." It's only obnoxious to you because of your strong desire to see this list deleted—your continual failure to see why this list should be retained is obnoxious to me. I'm sorry you find certain featured lists annoying, but it only shows how far from consensus your position actually is. DHowell (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if we every have a deletion debate on an article even remotely similar, you can trot that one out. In the meantime, the only thing they have in common is that they're lists. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    They're both lists that your specific arguments would deem deletion-worthy, but at least one is considered "the best of Wikipedia". And I don't believe critera which would delete our best content is useful. DHowell (talk) 06:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not interested in an argument by exhaustion where you make me figure out what you're talking about. Explain why they're related and what my arguments have to do with it or stop wasting everyone's time. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And here's some more refs: Google News for Gem of Amarra, Google News for Orb of Thesulah. Wow, there's even Google Scholar for the Gem of Amarra. Jclemens (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Read those refs. TV.com's hits are all from a fan-written episode database. The BBC hit is from a brief story an action figure with a sales run of 750, on a BBC-hosted Buffy fansite. The Scholar hits only mention the Gem of Amarra briefly as part of summarizing an episode for context. Substantial, these are not. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as wholly unreferenced, and further lacking any evidence of meeting the Notability guideline. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 05:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For the reasons JJL mentioned. Some of those items have been seen in different media sources, from television, comic books, etc. Dream Focus 18:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:N, WP:NOT, and WP:WAF. Unreferenced, pure plot summary. Probably a candidate to transwiki to the Buffy wiki if it isn't already there. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jclemens. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N, WP:NOT, and the guideline at WP:WAF. Eusebeus (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia isn't a place for this trivial cruft. Move to a Buffy Wiki (if it's not already there), it's not needed here. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because these objects are referenced in multiple published and popular works, and so are notable by any common sense definition of "notable". If there were "substantial" coverage in independent sources of each of these objects, they'd each get their own article. But since they are presumably just "mentioned" in reliable published sources, it is appropriate to "mention" them in a collected list. DHowell (talk) 02:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Some objects with a similar amount of coverage in these sources: Angel's vest in one flashback scene, Xander's Jell-o, the light switch in a demon's apartment. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument if it were true. After the fervency and looseness with which you've been arguing, I'm inclined to believe that it's not. Jclemens (talk) 03:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's an illustration of how trivial in each the coverage in the cited links is. But you don't have to believe me. You can read the sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Were any of these objects a significant element of the plot in the works in which they appeared? Did any of them do something significant like render people invincible, restore souls, or trap demons? DHowell (talk) 05:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin Seven of the above delete !votes assert that the list is unreferenced, when in fact as of now each entry has at least one reference. This suggests that several of the delete !voters have not revisited the discussion since improvements have been made. Jclemens (talk) 03:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And each reference is a trivial mention in passing in an episode summary or a nitpick list. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ... which they could have said, but haven't. Your !vote is very clear, but that doesn't mean that you can magically make all the "unreferenced" !votes turn into "trivially referenced"; the fact remains that these !votes do not match reality and should be weighted accordingly by the closing admin. Jclemens (talk) 04:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I said "no sources" above, even though I saw the bad sources in the article. Unreferenced can just as easily mean "no good references." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per the continued and exemplary improvement done by User:Jclemens since the article was first nominated. His understanding and use of WP:AFTER is to be commended. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • D'oh! Well, yes, the list was certainly incomplete because it lacked Buffy's scythe, which appeared in season 7, 8, and the Fray comic books. I inserted it and referenced it, and there are plenty of Google News, Google Books, and Google Scholar references. The number of RS's covering this most major of Buffyverse objects places its notability beyond a doubt. Jclemens (talk) 07:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mostly per nom and above. This list itself is not notable in the real-world. Outside mere trivial mentions of the objects, there is little that has been discussed in an encyclopedic manner relating to these objects, or the list of them itself, which is not acceptable per WP:WAF. Furthermore, the list is a violation of our policy WP:NOTDIRECTORY which states Wikipedia articles are not lists of loosly associated topics. The individual entries have recieved only trivial coverage, and the list itself is wholly nonnotable. This also violates WP:PLOT which states (at the time I'm writing this) The coverage of a fictional work should not be a mere plot summary. A summary should facilitate substantial coverage of the work's real-world development, reception, and significance. I've looked and I can not find any substantial coverage of the work's real-world development, reception, and significance apropos of these objects or the general list of them. In short, this hasn't made a difference in the real world at all, and can only be covered from an WP:INUNIVERSE perspective which isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. Cleaning up an article with such fundamental flaws as these cannot help it as you can't create encyclopedic coverage when none exists to begin with. ThemFromSpace 09:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per the work on this article by Anobody and User:Jclemens. Ikip (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This AfD has been listed on, Talk:List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes, Talk:Buffy the Vampire Slayer in popular culture, Talk:Buffyverse canon, Talk:Angel (TV series), Talk:List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters, Talk:Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series) Ikip (talk) 12:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as reasonable spin-out article of huge and notable series in TV, comics and movies. Hobit (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update Added three more entries (Buffy bot, Mr. Pointy, and Dagon sphere) with at least one RS reference each. There's potential for expansion beyond this, of course, but the article has now been completelty transformed since it was nominated. Jclemens (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I mentioned, I fail to see how these updates have addressed concerns from people who claim that the scope and subject of this article aren't fit for an encyclopedia per WP:NOT. None of my issues above have been dealt with. ThemFromSpace 19:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The vast majority of delete !votes have not referenced such arguments, but have only complained about lack of (reliable) sourcing. Fact is, however, that in adding RS's and list items, the list article has expanded from a six-item list that referenced half primary sources, to a ten-item list that references newspapers, university press books, and independent secondary source commentaries. I'm sorry if you don't find that satisfactory, but there's a large body of commentary on a franchise that's spanned 12 TV seasons, scores of comics, and dozens of novels, of which this is but a small representative sample. It would be nice if there were no deadline, but this article is in AfD. My effort has been to demonstrate that there's far more potential for encyclopedic, notable content than what this article's previous state would imply. Jclemens (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Notability isn't inherited from the parent topic. The notability that has to be shown is the notability of the list of Buffyverse objects and this has to be notable within the real world, not the "Buffyverse". Just because the coverage is verifiable doesn't make the subject notable, as the coverage must be significant, and the mentions must be non-trivial. If the coverage is verifiable in the real world but the subject isn't notable, a mention in other articles relating to the series which have notable subjects would be appropriate. ThemFromSpace 20:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, added some real world info, by way of replicas for a few of the items. I'm not really sure what reasonable real world impact you expect notable fictional elements to have, but give me some ideas and I'll see what else I can find. Jclemens (talk) 20:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Each of these references is a strictly trivial mention in an article that is chiefly about something else. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Including the replica references? What, pray tell, are those about, if not the real world replica of the fictional item? I'm sorry, but I'm having an increasingly hard time taking your repeated protests seriously. I continue to add RS'es and expand the list to demonstrate that the concept of a list of these ficitonal objects is notable, verifiable, and encyclopedic, and you have yet to acknowledge the slightest possibility that there may be more beyond what's been found in the limited time I've been working on this. Jclemens (talk) 02:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, when I say "references" I mean articles in reliable sources, not links to sales sites or press releases. Sorry for not being clearer; I'm blurring some different debates together in my head since I've been making this argument a lot. I'm gonna consolidate my replies to all of this in a new comment, addressing the new article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a fundamentally wrong-headed way to organize this information, and the low quality of the sources is symptomic of this. We're pulling scraps of trivial info from all over the place and creating a new topic from whole cloth. The sources are chiefly summaries of the episodes the items appear in, mentioning the objects in passing as part of the plot or as props in continuity nitpicks. The cited sites (I hesitate to call them references) are press releases or catalog sites (or, in one case, a fansite) mentioning licensed replicas of the objects, with no hope of insight or commentary. The former, if useful at all, belong in our hundreds-of-articles-long series on every single episode, issue, or novel of Buffy-related fiction anywhere. The latter belong in a unified article on merchandising, on which this is not a useful start.
    Currently, this list has no references that set some sort of topic or standard. The only implicit standard is important (enough) to the fictional universe, with no reference to our own.
    This is trivia from either low-quality or off-topic sources, with little standard for inclusion. It's everything wrong with "Things from fictional universe" articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I'd argue this is exactly the right format (well it could use some improvement, but you know what I mean) for this type of information. I'd ideally like to call it "significant" object or some such and organize it more by type. It's a good spin out article on a huge series. Hobit (talk) 02:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, AMIB, do you have ProQuest access? If not, can you explain why you've been making blanket statements about the references, when 5 of 26 (and the BEST 5 of 26, I might opine) aren't available to you? If so, can you comment specifically on a few of the ProQuest sources? Thanks. Jclemens (talk) 03:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Normally, it's on people who would justify keeping something to explain how the sources are applicable. Oh well. Using this article version:
      Ref #1 is a review of the first episode. Chiefly about the first episode and the series as a whole contrasted with the movie.
      Ref #3 is a capsule review column that summarizes the day's shows, used only to claim that such-and-such object is in such-and-such episode.
      Ref #4 (which was a pain to find because it was misnamed) is an episode review that doesn't even mention the plot point stated in our article.
      Ref #16 is a summary/review of an episode, mentioning only the connection with Fray.
      Ref #18 is a local daily reviewing the first collection of the season eight comic, again, only mentioning things in context. It does make the Fray connection, though.
      So. All of them mention the objects briefly as part of a plot summary. I am suggesting that we deal with the objects briefly as part of our hundreds-of-articles episode/book/issue summary series. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      BTW, it didn't take ProQuest access; the only one I needed to register for through other means was #18, and that was free registration. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also get the fact that you don't like fictional articles like this at all, that this can never satisfy you, and that you've put almost as much work into complaining about this list here as I have into cleaning it up, expanding it, and sourcing it. I'm sorry about that, but the fact is that there's now nearly a dozen objects that have multiple RS references to meet any reasonable interpretation of WP:N and WP:V. Sorry that you're not satisfied. Jclemens (talk) 03:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd rather discuss this article than humor offtopic discussion of people. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      So you don't find it relevant at all that you've been editing WP:FICT to reflect your deletionist views? I'll give you full marks for intellectual consistency, but less so for transparency. Jclemens (talk) 05:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Yup, I'm part of a mean scary cabal and I'm conspiring behind the scenes etc. You've got a lot of work ahead of you to find reliable sources independent of the subject with substantial commentary, don't waste time on ad hominem nonsense. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually, let's talk about how I commented on WP:FICT, since it's relevant. I opposed the old FICT not because it was too inclusionist or too deletionist, but because it was both. When you're breaking down a fictional topic, you need to break it into logical subtopics that flow naturally into each other. The problem is that the old version didn't do a good job of identifying these natural subtopics from, say, random shit thrown into a pile and called a list.
      This list is random shit. It's mostly plot devices, with a few MacGuffins, background details, and in-jokes or callbacks to different episodes spiced in. The reason it's such a heterogenous potpourri (sue me, I was doing my crosswords) is because it has no unifying topic. It doesn't descend naturally from anything else, and the only object rising even close to the "understanding a work" level is the scythe, because it's such a twisting path through Fray to the last season to the comic.
      Now, I don't know how to cover the scythe. If I had the answer to that dilemma, you'd see me starting a new WP:FICT with my sudden revelation. But one line in this random pile of trivia isn't it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — An indiscriminate list of trivia; besides, her tits didn't make teh list ;) G'day, Jack Merridew 06:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't give the inclusionists a reason to cite WP:HOTTIE as a rationale to keep this. Reyk YO! 08:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Mebbe we need an article on the Promenence of tits in popular culture ;) G'day, Jack Merridew 09:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOT Buffyverse wiki. A lot of the objects seem to have only trivial mention by outside sources. Many others only play a minor role in one or two episodes. What is the notability of the topic as a whole? That is, can anyone point to a reason why 'list of objects that play some role in a Buffy episode' is more significant than, say, 'list of objects used as evidence in Law and Order' or 'List of technological MacGuffin from Star Trek'? --Clay Collier (talk) 08:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you find even a "trivial" level of coverage for evidence objects in Law & Order in third-party reliable sources? And we have various lists of Star Trek objects, but you'd probably argue that those should be deleted as well. I'm actually surprised we don't have a list of major Star Trek objects like the replicator, the transporter, the holodeck, etc—I think we ought to. DHowell (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would be unsurprising to me if TV-preview type articles of the type used in a couple cases here didn't say 'This week on law and order, the discovery of a pipe wrench leads to blah blah'. There are Star Trek objects that have received significant enough third-party coverage to be notable, but the techno-MacGuffins that appear in a single episode or so and then are never heard from again- which is what the majority of the Buffyverse objects are- don't warrant inclusion even in list form. Furthermore, there is still the problem of the notability of the very idea of the list; is there a source that says 'In the Buffyverse, objects are used in a significant way that makes them more than just single-shot plot devices'? --Clay Collier (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • How many of these differing items only appear in one unit (novel, episode, comic) of the fictional work? At least three (Scythe, Gem of Amara, orb of Thesulah) span franchises within the Buffyverse, appearing in Buffy and Fray, Angel, and Angel, respectively. Buffybot spanned two seasons of the show, Olaf's hammer appeared twice in Season 5, the Dagon sphere appeared in at least two episodes of S5, the Urn of Osiris was in at least 2 S6 episodes and referenced in others, and Mr. Pointy existed from S2-7, Resikian urns were used multiple times in Angel. Anyanka's amulet only appeared one actual episode, but the effects of its destruction were referenced throughout later seasons. Now, I absolutely grant that there were plenty of "foo of blah" magical components that didn't have any effect beyond a single episode, but these aren't those. These are the ones that made such an impact on the culture that they, for example, appeared in a Forbes article on scythes, and of which commercially sold replicas were produced. Jclemens (talk) 05:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Appearing in two or three episodes as a MacGuffin is no more significant to the series than appearing in one, thus 'one episode or so' above. The coverage of many of these objects in the references is also quite trivial- an off-hand mention of the Dagon sphere quoted in an article primarily talking about something else, something mentioned once in a season recap or preview, etc. There just hasn't been enough written about the objects themselves, in my opinion, to consider their coverage in independent sources anything other than trivial. There might be a rationale for an article covering the reproduction items made and sold if there has been discussion of the replicas in independent sources, but that would be a different article. There are lots of fictional objects that rise to this standard from fictional franchises, but I don't think that anything from Buffy has reached that particular plateau. No one is writing 'Technology of the Buffyverse' books because Buffy, as a series, had much more of a character focus and tended to use objects like this just as frequently-discarded plot devices. --Clay Collier (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • List criteria have now been added, and three entries removed from the list. That leaves 10 items, 3 original which have been expanded or cited, and 7 new ones. Three of the original 6 have been removed, which gives us somewhere between a 50% and 233% turnover during the AfD process, depending on how you count. Jclemens (talk) 05:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Arbitrary criteria don't really improve this list much. How does appearing in two consecutive episodes matter more than one? How do more references that devote a half-sentence to the object help the article? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you will recall You asked for them. Are you now admitting that your request for list criteria was done in bad faith? Jclemens (talk) 05:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I asked for reasonable criteria, not arbitrary standards. The idea is that a good list has criteria that flow naturally from a topic. "Plot devices in Buffy" would be a topic. "Magical items capable of [X] in Buffy" would be a topic. "Stuff in two or more episodes" is not a topic, it's a coincidental quality. Good lists start with a topic you can say something about, then say something about it, and use the listed items to illustrate this topic. Look at the lead; there's little said because there's nothing to say. There's nothing to say because there's no topic that reliable sources have covered. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment looking over the rewrite, I stand behind my original vote %100. None of the fundamental problems with the topic have been addressed. The article has merely been prettied up to make it look nice, although it is still fundamentally a few things which Wikipedia is not, nor has notability of the list been established. This still fails WP:WAF as well. ThemFromSpace 05:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What part of WP:WAF do you think this list violates? I think it is exceptional on point with respect to WP:WAF#Summary_style_approach. Jclemens (talk) 05:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The real-world / in-universe dichotomy isn't properly addressed, nor do I think it can be addressed. This just hasn't made a difference in the real-world. Verifiability isnt notability. Saying a list of items is notable within the Buffyverse isn't the same as saying the list is notable within the real-world. The latter is what's required by WP:WAF which states the subject's real-world notability should be established according to the general notability guideline. ThemFromSpace 05:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete with caveat. The entire list should be present in the Buffy wikia, but it does not have enough of a bearing on the real world to be in this encyclopedia. Someone should make sure that this list is represented fully in the Buffy wikia so that the work on it is not lost and it is readily available for the show's fans (myself included) to read and reference. Once a confirmation that the list is reproduced or represented in it's entirety in the appropriate wkia, it should be deleted from here. Medleystudios72 (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY, split from overly long article. Bearian (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Buffyverse_objects&oldid=1137991783"