Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hellmouth (Buffyverse)
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. Proto::► 11:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hellmouth (Buffyverse)[edit]
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 22:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I don't agree with the arguments given, Buffy the Vampire Slayer's notability establishes this location's notability, there is nothing in WP:NOT that excludes fictional locations in a TV show or otherwise. Given that this is a description of a thing in a television show, it's certainly verifiable. Tag with unreferenced if you feel a need for sources. FrozenPurpleCube 23:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - this is not just another random 'place in a TV show', but an important location that appears in every episode, 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 00:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I don't even watch the show, and I know that it's an important part of the story. SAMAS 00:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 universe 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 universe, which the article is about. KnightLago 00:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Hellmouth gets 315,000 Googlehits. The series was set in a town which happened to be on the hellmouth, so much supernatural horror arrived weekly. There have been numerous articles reflecting on the hellmouth as a metaphor for the angst of the highschool years: "The earlier and lighter years depicted suburban American adolescence as a metaphor for the Hellmouth." in "Buffy Rides Off Into the Sunset;" [Editorial]Gail Collins. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: May 21, 2003. pg. A.30. "The premise of Buffy is that Sunnydale, the sleepy California town where Buffy Summers (Sarah Michelle Gellar) and her divorced mom (Kristine Sutherland), L.A. natives, have relocated, is built on the Hellmouth, a convergence of supernatural energies that draws a wide variety of vampires and demons." in "Yes, She's a Vampire Slayer. No, Her Show Isn't Kid Stuff." Steve Vineberg. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Oct 1, 2000. pg. 2.42. "Living in generic Sunnydale, California, which just happens to be on top of a Hellmouth -- the point of entry for vampires, demons, mummies, and other assorted monster-movie creeps -- Buffy is a social misfit." in "Buffy slays Ally: what does a vampire-killing teen have that a miniskirted lawyer doesn't?" Kingwell, Mark. Saturday Night. Toronto: May 1998.Vol.113, Iss. 4; pg. 77. Multiple, independent, nontrivial, all found in 5 minutes on Proquest. Edison 01:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please use the sources in the article. Cite them. Cite all the claims and the plot summary in the article. By your own admission the only way these sources were located was from Proquest. They were not used in the writing of the article. The onus for verifiability is on the person who adds all this information. As it appears now, the article violates WP:NOR, and WP:V. Using proquest you may find sources, but demonstrate their use in this article. This article should be deleted or stubbed to only the information that is cited. If nothing is cited, then it should be removed in its entirety. KnightLago 01:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to suggest a rewrite to the article if that's your concern. However, that is a clean-up issue, not a deletion problem. FrozenPurpleCube 15:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a deletion problem. The article violates WP:NOR and WP:V, two of the three core principles of WP. Rewrite the article, it should only take 5 minutes to remove everything and then add the information you have sources for. Once it has been rewritten I will take another look at it. But as it stands now it should be deleted. KnightLago 16:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh, it's not a deletion problem when the article can be properly sourced. See the deletion policy which pretty expressly covers this kind of situation. So next time, please consider trying clean-up tags first. FrozenPurpleCube 16:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I will consider the tags first next time. But this article as it stands fails WP:V, and WP:NOR. That is a fact. And failing WP:NOR outright is cause for deletion. KnightLago 16:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you misunderstand the purpose of NOR, which is not for things like this article which are based on real things, but for articles that are merely theories. Any OR could be removed from this article and still leave content. Thus it doesn't fail NOR outright. FrozenPurpleCube 17:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- From WP:NOR, "Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position." So, it includes anything not drawn from a reliable source. KnightLago 17:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I really think you are missing the point of the OR policy. Observation of something in a fictional medium doesn't always require independent sources. If Giles says there is a Hellmouth in Sunnydale, I'm comfortable with an article that says there's a Hellmouth in Sunnydale. Thus while some of the content may be questionable, arguing that there are no independent sources is missing the point. Object to theories on the Hellmouth if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that common sense will tell you that the Hellmouth itself is not OR. FrozenPurpleCube 18:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- From WP:NOR, "Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position." So, it includes anything not drawn from a reliable source. KnightLago 17:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you misunderstand the purpose of NOR, which is not for things like this article which are based on real things, but for articles that are merely theories. Any OR could be removed from this article and still leave content. Thus it doesn't fail NOR outright. FrozenPurpleCube 17:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a deletion problem. The article violates WP:NOR and WP:V, two of the three core principles of WP. Rewrite the article, it should only take 5 minutes to remove everything and then add the information you have sources for. Once it has been rewritten I will take another look at it. But as it stands now it should be deleted. KnightLago 16:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to suggest a rewrite to the article if that's your concern. However, that is a clean-up issue, not a deletion problem. FrozenPurpleCube 15:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please use the sources in the article. Cite them. Cite all the claims and the plot summary in the article. By your own admission the only way these sources were located was from Proquest. They were not used in the writing of the article. The onus for verifiability is on the person who adds all this information. As it appears now, the article violates WP:NOR, and WP:V. Using proquest you may find sources, but demonstrate their use in this article. This article should be deleted or stubbed to only the information that is cited. If nothing is cited, then it should be removed in its entirety. KnightLago 01:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I don't see how you can claim it's not verifiable. The whole series is available on DVD. I'd say that counts as "published". --Jwwalker 04:10, 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 friends 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]
- Strong Delete Uioh 18:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - These locations are notable as crucial locations in super-notable series. But improve them by citing where information is coming from (e.g. footnotes on episodes). - Buffyverse 04:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I found this page incredibly useful and only came here to vote when I saw it was up for AFD. This page is notable and the location is crucial in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. It is similar to the wormhole from Star Trek: Deep Space Nine in the way that it provides a seemingly endless list of possible plot devices. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 21:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Wikipedia is consulted also by people interested in scriptwriting, playwrighting, critics of cinema/TV and people generally interested in the Ninth Muse, and storytelling in general. dott.Piergiorgio 09:46, 9 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.