Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Buffyverse articles

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. Johnleemk | Talk 05:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Buffyverse articles

List is redundant classification of Category:Buffy the Vampire Slayer/Category:Buffyverse, page title is self-referential. Dave 01:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

'Buffyverse' is very different to 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer'.Only place offering comprehensive but unified coverage of links to both Buffy and Angel articles, and all other Buffyverse related articles on one page. 'Category:Buffy the Vampire Slayer' by its very definition explicitly separates it from Angel articles, from Fray articles, as well as from other stories revolving arond slayers and vampires from the same fictional universe. The link 'Category:Buffy the Vampire Slayer' is incapable and inadequate just from its very title of such scope, if the categories do begin to take the whole Buffyverse as one, there is a case for deleting List of Buffyverse articles. If it is deleted before then, then a perfectly useful navigation tool for people who are fans of the whole Buffyverse is going to bite the dust. -- Paxomen 01:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• Categorize. Something like this is more applicable to a "Buffyverse" category, and that makes it easy to keep updated since every time someone creates a related article they just add the category. And the BTVS category can become a subcategory if people prefer.. 23skidoo 01:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

  The Category:Buffyverse already exists, and Category:Buffy the Vampire Slayer is already a subcategory. Dave 01:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

  The Category:Buffyverse is more than inadequate it only contains half a dozen direct links! why not delete this article only when 'Category:Buffyverse' is up to the task of navigating the whole buffyverse quickly. At the moment there is no substitute for what this article is capable of. -- Paxomen 02:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

  In fact when Category:Buffyverse has improved enough to incorporate all the main articles viewable from its first page, I would happily delete the article myself even though i created this, but until then why delete useful content? -- Paxomen 02:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• All the articles I looked at in the list are either included in the Buffyverse category, or in one of its sub-categories (Buffyverse stubs, Angel (series), Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters), or in one of their subcategores (which I will not list here). Several articles only required the addition of a "[[Category:Buffyverse]]" (or whichever subcategory is more relevant) tag to the end of the article (In fact I did a few of these myself and tripled the Buffyverse category's contents). Once these have been categorised, we are left with a long list of links, and Wikipedia is not meant to contain long lists of external links. So those interested in the Buffy fictional universe, go forth and categorise! -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 02:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete this should be a bloody category. Just because your categories are a mess is not an excuse to make listcruft Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 02:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC) Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 02:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and let the originator of this article sort everything into the appropriate categories. Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 05:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a self-reference. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The appeal of categories is that unlike lists, they update themselves automatically, and that one can use them to quickly find related articles. However, categories are not a substitute for lists, and you will find that many articles belong to both lists and categories. = Quote from Wikipedia:Categorization#How to create categories -- Paxomen 18:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Flowerparty■ 00:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I like Josh Whedon as much as the next guy but I don't see the encyclopedic nature of this much Buffystuff. Also it should be done with categories anyway, IMHO. ++Lar: t/c 01:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I love Whedon; I have all of Buffy, all of Angel, and Serenity on dvd. This is still listcruft. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Just an unimformative list that does nothing for the reader. Its also filled with sickening spam to boot. Hell, Speedy delete it if possible. -Zero^Talk 15:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete list and Categorize for reasons described by some earlier voters. Buffy fans, please remember that Wikipedia is not one of your fansites. It's for encyclopedic coverage of things that the rest of the world has found notable; see also WP:FICT and WP:WEB. Barno 21:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • (the above comment was moved from the redirect page where it went astray.. User:Barno replaced it below with an elaboration, so maybe it's deletable but I leave it to him.++Lar: t/c 22:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete list and Categorize for reasons described by some earlier voters. Buffy fans, please remember that Wikipedia is not one of your fansites. It's for encyclopedic coverage of things that the rest of the world has found notable; see also WP:FICT and WP:WEB. A lot of that should be moved to a fansite, then merged down to a few articles. Whedon's work has excited a few hundred people and made viewers out of a few million people; it hasn't changed the world. In a hundred years, will this stuff be put up against Shakespeare or Hitchcock as a milestone in drama? Barno 22:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  This isn't the place to debate the cultural value of Buffy. It's a place to debate the encyclopedic value of the nominated article. Dave 00:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

  • What I was implying was not debating the general topic's "cultural value", but the cultural importance, which affects whether WP should give it one brief article, or three, or dozens. This is a matter of amount of encyclopedic value. If a few fansites pop up for three children's TV shows and a movie from one producer, does that mean that WP should devote megabytes of disk space and many hours of contributors' time to it? And I asked the question (in terms of widespread impact) rather than denigrating the content by claiming it's not worthy. If a hundred million people bought Buffy toys and a great Buffy-Art movement was inspired, then we probably should have such deep and broad coverage as this list implies. If not, we probably shouldn't. Barno 14:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --NaconKantari 22:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fancruft Incognito 00:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

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.