Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Magic Box
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 KEEP (no consensus). -Docg 00:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as fancruft, fails to claim notabilty, also WP:NOT a repository of places in a tv show, also fails WP:V, and WP:CITE to name a few KnightLago 22:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As a compromise maybe this could be redirected to an article titled "Locations in the Buffyverse".--NeilEvans 23:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- An excellent idea, which I would be fine with. Maybe we could start that article, and add places that are important (and cited) to the Buffy world. KnightLago 19:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We are working on a consensus proposal here. Please feel free to offer your thoughts or edit the proposal. Thanks. KnightLago 19:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- An excellent idea, which I would be fine with. Maybe we could start that article, and add places that are important (and cited) to the Buffy world. KnightLago 19:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Buffy the Vampire slayer is notable, WP:NOT doesn't exclude places in a TV show, it is verifiable and can be cited as well. I would not oppose the single page option though. FrozenPurpleCube 23:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - this is not just another random 'place in a TV show', but an important location that appears many many episodes, in a very notable show. it is impractical to delete all location articles related to TV series just because some might like to see a Wikipedia that ignores popular culture. Wikipedia is not Encyclopædia Britannica, and can deal with popular culture if it is non-point-of-view, verifiable and not involving original research. This article's referencing can potentially be improved, there is no real justification for deletion based on official deletion policy. - Paxomen 00:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, this article fails to claim notability in anyway. From WP:N, "a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other." The show is notable. A fictional magic shop is not. And straight from WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." Where can I check a reliable source about this article? This article also fails Wikipedia's no original research policy, as the only place this information comes from is original research. I agree that this is not the Encyclopedia Britannica, and I welcome popular culture, but, only popular culture that is verifiable and not involving original research. Again, all of the above arguments have focused on the notability of the show and not this magic shop, which the article is about. KnightLago 00:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Television show claims notability. This is an aspect of the television show. Hence no assertion of notability is necessary. It's part of the show. If it is a minor trivial element of the show, that's one thing, it should be merged into another article, but not deleted. Furthermore, information about the Magic Box is available from Buffy Magazine among other places. If this article didn't use it, suggest a rewrite from such sources then. FrozenPurpleCube 14:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The television show has notability. This does not. "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other." The show has been written about, this place has not. Buffy Magazine is not a reliable source that is in my opinion "indent of the subject itself." Furthermore, while you can argue notability and sourcing here, and claim that there are sources out there, they were not cited or used in this article. The entire thing fails WP:NOR. And again, if you want to rewrite, take 5 minutes and do it. I will take another look then. KnightLago 16:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A further thought, if this show filmed at a gas station, under your reasoning, what stops someone from creating an article about it? It was on the show, so it is notable, and we would have to allow an article? Who decides what is a minor and trivial element in relation to this show? The answer to the question would be we would look at WP:V, and WP:NOR. If it passed both of those we would keep. But, if it failed, as this article fails, we would delete. KnightLago 16:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See my responses elsewhere. FrozenPurpleCube 18:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Television show claims notability. This is an aspect of the television show. Hence no assertion of notability is necessary. It's part of the show. If it is a minor trivial element of the show, that's one thing, it should be merged into another article, but not deleted. Furthermore, information about the Magic Box is available from Buffy Magazine among other places. If this article didn't use it, suggest a rewrite from such sources then. FrozenPurpleCube 14:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, this article fails to claim notability in anyway. From WP:N, "a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other." The show is notable. A fictional magic shop is not. And straight from WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." Where can I check a reliable source about this article? This article also fails Wikipedia's no original research policy, as the only place this information comes from is original research. I agree that this is not the Encyclopedia Britannica, and I welcome popular culture, but, only popular culture that is verifiable and not involving original research. Again, all of the above arguments have focused on the notability of the show and not this magic shop, which the article is about. KnightLago 00:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per KnightLago. TJ Spyke 02:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as not notable. If it is notable in the Buffyverse then give it an article at the Buffy Wiki or the Buffy Wikia. Should real magic stores get articles here too? --maclean 07:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I don't see KnightLago's logic in putting Buffy fictional locations up for deletion when he's updating the page for Central Perk, the fictional coffee shop on Friends. Why is Central Perk treated differently? Static Universe 07:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because if you read the comment by Paxomen in this (third comment down) AFD he argues for the keeping of the article because of Central Perk. I went to Central Perk and tried to see what sources I could find before I nominated it for deletion. I found a few so I cited them. I am still thinking about nominating the article and the other places in the freinds universe when this ends. You are attacking me and my edits because you have yet to find a logical reason to keep this article or the others in the face of Wikipedia policy. KnightLago 13:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. One location from one tv show without any sources? No. Encyclopedias do not need this much detail. --- RockMFR 05:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - These locations are notable as crucial locations in super-notable series. Wikipedia can cope with few of the most important locations from fictions, I'd never argue that we need an article for every room in a series, that would be madness. I'd agree that they could be improved by citing where information is coming from (e.g. footnotes referencing specific episodes). Wales: "free access to the sum of all human knowledge", we don't need to censor the popular culture bits, instead lets improve them. It's easy to sneer at popular culture, but the fictional narratives that millions share say a lot about us. - Buffyverse 04:35, 6 January 2007 (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.