Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buffy body count

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 of the debate was delete (copy at [1]. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 21:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buffy body count

PLEASE NOTE The article has undergone substantial redrafting since the start of the AfD. JoshuaZ 00:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Far from notable. WP:NOT a fan site. Any relevant material can be merged into Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 04:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I want to see the outcome of it. It needs to be wikified a bit when it's done. I suppose it's a bit fanboyish, but worse things are accepted on wikipedia. - Richardcavell 04:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 'tis listcruft to be sure. Next they'll be adding the names of the vampires. Then what they said as they died. Then how they affected the main characters by what they said. Chalk this up as a "Friendly casulaties" (sick) Shenme 05:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article's writer gives several worthwhile uses for the body count, including literary criticism in the manner of Kenneth Burke. This is very insightful and unlike the drivel of many other Buffy articles. Why delete stuff just because some people can't understand anything beyond comic book level writing? This article enriches Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.133 (talk • contribs)
Delete - agree with Shenme, and if you "can't understand anything beyond comic book level writing" you aren't ready for an encyclopedia --Ajdz 05:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - ~~ ajdz, you're quoting out of context, which is kind of pointless since the quote you're butchering is about five or six lines above your twisted version of it~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.133 (talk • contribs)
    - Only in a comic book... --Ajdz 06:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable listcruft. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 06:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a fan guide. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Voting often does not usually work on Wikipedia, and please do not blank my comments. Dspserpico 06:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC) (rewritten: Dspserpico 15:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
- I quite agree. About 3/4 of the other Buffy dreck should also be deleted. — Haeleth Talk 11:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unencyclopedic. ...Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 06:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well written, but I don't think it belongs on wikipedia. In fact, I think alot of the Buffy stuff need to be merged. Why do minor Buffy characters get their own article when minor characters from other movies and tv shows are put in a list? I think it violates some notability standards. Dspserpico 06:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the bastard offspring of listcruft and fancruft after a drunken one-night-stand. -M^ask 06:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- listcruft, fancruft, cruft all the way. And yes, 3/4 of the other Buffy dreck should also be deleted. The El Reyko 07:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Relevant material can be merged into Buffy the Vampire Slayer. David Sneek 09:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is actually an interesting and well-written article and not fancruft or listcruft. There's the core of a publishable article there but it's not I think for Wiki. Dlyons493 Talk 11:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - above average Buffy article, for sure. Why an encyclopedia should contain any articles on commercial products, however, is beyond me--is Wikipedia an encyclopedia, as it purports to be, or simply a catalogue of free advertisements for popular goods and services? In my view, all the content that smacks of fandom, commercialization, and marketing should be deleted immediately, but that would mean 9/10 of Wikipedia's content would vanish overnight, so, if other junk articles are to be allowed, this one should be, too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.116.133 (talk • contribs) . [2]

Third keep from the same IP -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 21:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These passages alone indicate that the article is too meritorious to delete: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.116.133 (talk • contribs) .

The above comment the 4th keep [3]-- ( drini's page ☎ ) 21:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Perhaps Buffy fans had a similar motive as the U. S. military had in using body counts, hoping to prove, at least to themselves, that the valiant efforts of Buffy and her friends were, so to speak, making a difference in the age-old struggle of the forces of good against the forces of evil.

- The Buffy body count also helps fans, critics, and other interested parties keep track of the episodes in which, in terms of vampire or demon activity, the action was cooling down or heating up; as such, the body count allows individuals to chart the Hellmouth's least and most active periods over a seven-year time frame. For example, vampires appear to be far more numerous (or active) than demons, and demons were twice as numerous (or active) in season two than they were in season one. Likewise, vampires were almost three times more numerous (or active) in season two than they were in season one. Season four, compared to the other six seasons, is almost devoid of vampires, but the demons are more numerous (or active) than ever. In "Triangle," episode 11 of season five, Buffy bags her 100th vampire.

- In addition, as Joss Whedon, who created Buffy the Vampire Slayer, has said that the vampires, demons, and other monsters in the series are metaphors of existential threats, problems, and difficulties that teens and young adults face. For example, Marcie Ross, an invisible girl, becomes invisible as a result of being ignored by teachers and her fellow students. Her invisibility represents being ignored by others, a metaphor used by Ralph Ellison in Invisible Man, a novel that recounts the effects of black men's being ignored by whites during the racially segregated period of the early twentieth century. By adapting Kenneth Burke's dramatistic pentad to the types of demons that attack Buffy and her friends, both as teens and young adults, fans, critics, and others can isolate, identify, and evaluate what category of existential crisis seemed to traumatize these characters during specific periods of their childhoods and later years. Such a tool allows scholars and fans alike the ability to analyze and assess both these threats themselves, the reactions and the responses of the characters who encounter them, and the effects of these threats upon their lives. By decoding the significance of a particular vampire or demon (or human) according to its existential, psychological, social, or spiritual nature and then weighing the number of times during a season (or throughout the series) such threats menace Buffy and her friends, critics and fans can better chart and understand the show's thematic as well as narrative arcs.

Bravo!

Delete A lovely article, but not, IMHO, for Wikipedia. The best place would be a Wookiepedia-type place. But for Buffy, natch. HawkerTyphoon 13:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article is well-written, but it's not a particularly encyclopedic page. And does the person above realize that, no matter how many times you post, it only counts as one vote? They've currently edited this AfD page seventeen times. -- Kicking222 14:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, listcruft. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well-written, informative, innovative, and actually useful--yeah, better delete it.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.116.133 (talk • contribs) .

Fifth keep from the same IP [4] -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 21:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are multiple votes for keep from the same IP address 207.200.116.133 and is the source of most of the unsigned comments. Somebody, please do something. Dspserpico 15:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The IP in question also accounts for a very large amount of the article's history, too. Warrens 16:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Eusebeus 15:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well written but does not belong on wikipedia. Too notable as listcruft to be an article.--Cini 15:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kuzaar 15:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absurdly non-useful. --InShaneee 16:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Smells like WP:NOR to me. This would be a good article for a Buffy website, though, it's nice prose. Warrens 16:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete'-per Cini. The Republican 16:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~ Abstain for now. Note that I am going to userfy the article to me. At present this article should be clearly deleted but I'd like to possibly trim it and at some point make it into an acceptable article. JoshuaZ 16:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Anonymous IP 207.200.116.133 deleted Dspserpico's comment above from this page a few minutes ago. Warrens 16:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Same IP address just AfD'd my user page. I didn't do a damn thing to antagonize this person beyond voting for deletion on something that I thought was well written. Somebody, please do something. Dspserpico 01:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IMO, removing votes should be countered with removing articles. But then again, I am quite hardcore over those things. HawkerTyphoon 17:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Articles should be removed based on their merits and our relevant policies and guidelines. Kotepho 18:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, obviously. But I am entitled to voice my opinion on talk pages:) HawkerTyphoon 00:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A fansite might be interested in hosting it, if one doesn't already. Шизомби 23:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given that Wikipedia is happy to 'host' a 'buffyverse', I cannot see why this article should be removed. It certainly does not meet my definition of listcruft. Colon el Tom 00:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've redrafted the article to remove OR, improve formating and grammar and wikfy. Wikification has some minor problems (with episode titles) that I will handled when I get a chance, but right now it looks like a reasonable list. JoshuaZ 01:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as prime fancruft. I don't mind Buffyverse articles, but details like this is taking it too far. -- Hirudo 02:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm torn! Anybody who cares about this kind of thing would most certainly find the list useful, but those people are few and far between. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and cannot have infinite detail, I vote delete. This list is far more appropriate on a wiki dedicated to Buffy, or a fansite. ~MDD4696 02:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ah well, looks like an hour of clean up can't do much to help a ~~fundamentally crufty article.~~ JoshuaZ 03:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good intentions, and if nothing else, it looks clean. Userfy? Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 04:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - ~~Well it doesn't make much sense to userfy an article which pretty clearly has no chance of getting recreated. JoshuaZ 04:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)~~ Yeah what the heck userfy it to me please. JoshuaZ 04:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Its now at the buffy wikia [5] -- Astrokey44|talk 09:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: In a weird twisted way, it is important information about someone whose profession is 'vampire slayer'. Plus Wikipedia is not paper. Peter Grey 07:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe there is a Buffy the Vampire wiki that would benefit from this? However it is not an appropriate topic for Wikipedia. Cedars 09:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There sure is - this article is now on the Buffyverse wiki although that site doesnt have much activity --Astrokey⁴⁴ 10:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was going to ignore this and move on, but it actually looks sourced and interested, so keep and expand it further. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very much Delete. Uninformative, plagarised (cf. sourced), and entirely irrelevant. - Abscissa 04:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Er, why do you think this is plagarised? JoshuaZ 16:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Once all the worthless anime information is purged from wikipedia, I'll vote delete on this totally non-notable, fancruft, worthless article. But since Wikipedia is rarely consistent I will try to be. For the sake of consistency and in the face of the mountain of anime articles I feel this deserves a chance too. --206.191.28.13 15:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fancruft nonsense. incog 15:06, 25 April 2006 (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.