Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:10, 12 April 2009

List of Buffyverse objects

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)

• Keep reasonable fork-for-length of a widely covered subject with many forms (movie, TV series, books, comics). JJL (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep there is no problem here. ZooFari 00:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Can you give a valid reason to keep this article, there are plenty of problems here. Secret 13:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete No sources, no signs of notability, no reason to have its own article (no reason it shouldn't be in the Buffyverse article). TJ Spyke 00:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge - No sources at all, fails to meet WP:N. This one should probably be either deleted, or merged to Buffyverse. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete- Wikia would be a great place for this article, but not a serious encyclopedia. There are no sources and no indication that a list like this is something an encyclopedia should be covering. I also don't think that a content fork justifies perpetrating this fork- if an article becomes so bloated that content needs to be spun out, please make sure it can stand on its own two feet first. Otherwise, removing or trimming content is the preferred option. Reyk _YO! 01:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Non-notable objects that don't even belong in the Buffyverse article. The context of these objects are explained in their parent articles. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Entirely minute details of Buffycruft. No content to merge anywhere. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Transwiki to be buffy wiki 70.29.213.241 (talk) 04:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. No sources, no context, no topic as near as I can tell. It's just "List of fictional stuff". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge or Keep Quistisffviii (talk) 07:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. I rather doubt the list is finished at this point. The objects need to be sourced by explicit reference to the primary source,as appropriate for this sort of content. DGG (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Why? Secret 13:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

why it shouldbe expanded. Because there are a multidude of other objects in the fiction. DGG (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• 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)

  this is recording the obvious, not interpreting. DGG (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

  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)

  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 and slicing 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)

  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)

  Why is "significant objects in the Buffyverse" not a reasonable criteria? DHowell (talk) 05:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

  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)

• Delete fails WP:FICTION, no reliable sources Secret 13:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete "a list of objects that have appeared in the Buffyverse" seems to fail WP:N and WP:NOT: "Misplaced Pages 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)
• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  I'm trying to assume good faith here, but your statement is not congruent with reality. In five of the seven listed books appear to be commentaries or other non-fiction. Jclemens (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

• Delete as wholly unreferenced, and further lacking any evidence of meeting the Notability guideline. — pd_THOR | 05:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Jclemens. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:N, WP:NOT, and the guideline at WP:WAF. Eusebeus (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Misplaced Pages 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)
• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)

  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)

  ... 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)

  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)

• 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, 05:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)
• Strong keep per the work on this article by Anobody and User:Jclemens. Ikip (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• 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)
• Keep as reasonable spin-out article of huge and notable series in TV, comics and movies. Hobit (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • Significant meaning what? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
  • 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)

    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)

    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)

  • 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)

    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)

• Delete — An indiscriminate list of trivia; besides, her tits didn't make teh list ;) G'day, Jack Merridew 06:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Fiction and the arts)
• AfD debates