Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caritas (Buffyverse)


 * 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 :: ►  11:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Caritas (Buffyverse)

 * — (View AfD)


 * Delete as fancruft, fails to claim notabilty, also WP:NOT a repository of rooms in a tv show, also fails WP:V, and WP:CITE to name a few KnightLago 22:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - very notable location within the Buffyverse. Dismissing it as a "room in a tv show" indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of the subject matter. Otto4711 23:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The show itself is notable, nothing in WP:NOT that says we can't have articles on fictional places, could be verified and cited. FrozenPurpleCube 23:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - this is not just another random 'place in a TV show', but an important location that appears in 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 00:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, for a start the 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 demon-friendly karaoke bar 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. All of the above arguments have focused on the notability of the show and not this room. KnightLago 00:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I might take your arguments more seriously if your repeated use of the word "room" to describe Caritas didn't indicate to me that you have no real awareness of what the article's even about. Otto4711 15:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't have to claim notability when it is a sub-article of a television show. Furthermore, there are references.  Take the Buffy/Angel magazines, I'm sure they had some information about Caritas, as it was a set used multiple times over several seasons.  Try an unreferenced tag next time.  FrozenPurpleCube 15:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 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/Angel magazines are not reliable source that are in my opinion "independent 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 16:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 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 16:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * While the Buffy/Angel magazines are not completely independent, but licensed, they serve as useful references since they do contain valuable information about the series, and are substantially more than just press-releases.  They are reputable sources as far as I'm concerned.  And while a set that only appears once may not be important enough for its own article (it would probably best receive an entry in whatever episode description there is for the series), a set that appears multiple times in the same series is another matter.  And seriously, if you want people to rewrite it, you should have tried the option of asking first, then if that didn't happen going to AfD.  The fact that it can happen though, is enough for me to stick by my keep.  FrozenPurpleCube 16:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If they are not independent, they are not reliable. And while they may be useful references for a fan of the show, they do not qualify as sources for Wikipedia. Someone rewriting an article to fix objections happens all the time in AFD. And, I don't want to delete anything that passes WP:V, and WP:NOR, these do not. I am also curious how you respond would respond to my hypothetical gas station article above. KnightLago 16:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * They are not independent, so they are not reliable? Sorry, does not compute.  Where in WP:RS can I find support for this claim?  Even if it were there, you should note that RS itself says "However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception."  Accordingly, you cannot just say that the magazines are licensed and therefore, they are not reliable sources.  You'd actually have to convince me that the actual magazine itself was unreliable.  Common sense should tell you that something in print is likely to be edited for accuracy and especially when it's licensed and the owners of the media don't want false information about their product to be released.  And I have already responded to your question about a gas station.  Did you not realize that "a set that only appears only once" was about that subject?  And no, I don't think that the gas station in season 5 of Buffy should have its own article.  Information about it would belong in the episodes it was in.  FrozenPurpleCube 17:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not from WP:RS, but from WP:N. From there "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." And from WP:INDY, an essay not policy, "An independent source is a source which describes a topic from the outside." Clearly these magazines are not. And I am sorry, I missed your response about the gas station. KnightLago 17:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't using the magazines to assert notability, but offering them as references. If you need me to establish that the shows are notable, well, I would say the existence of the magazines would serve that purpose actually, but it's hardly necessary anyway.  Television show on a major network?  Notability is a done deal.  And um, your reference to WP:INDY makes no sense, since the fact is, the magazines DO describe the show from the outside.  They are not in-universe, they are licensed works about the show.  As such, I consider them reliable in terms of the content they have to offer.  Have you read them yourself?  Because I get the feeling that you are objecting in ignorance.  FrozenPurpleCube 17:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I was confused about the content of the magazines, and didn't realize that there they were not "in-universe". And as to the the notability. Notability of the show is a done deal, I agree. But not the notability of a fictional demon-friendly karaoke bar as a stand alone article is not. KnightLago 17:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if knew more about the show, you might recognize that the setting appears in multiple episodes (and is the focus of at least one), so I'd say that establishes the notability, the same way with any other number of places in fiction, whether it be Gondor, the Enterprise, the Baxter Building or any number of other places important enough to have an article of their own. I would probably agree with you if it was in only one episode, or more properly fit under some sub-category but in this case?  No, I understand why it's worth having its own article, even absence outside review. FrozenPurpleCube 18:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, could these all fit into some single new article about the settings of the Buffy world? Say one detailing important places? I don't know, I am trying to come up with something. Then the article could be started and kept well referenced. KnightLago 18:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * (Dropping Indents):I don't inherently object to the idea, but I'd suggest taking it up with the Buffy Wikiproject instead. They seem reasonably well organized though, with a list of locations, so I think it's not being done flippantly, but sticking to major locations.  FrozenPurpleCube 18:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I wrote a quick compromise proposal on my userspace here for posting at WP:VPR. See the discussion here. I have not posted anything yet. Please let me know what you think, and feel free to change. KnightLago 19:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as not notable. If it is notable in the Buffyverse then give it an article at the Buffy Wiki or the Buffy Wikia. In this universe, it is an imaginary karaoke bar. --maclean 07:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 13:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 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
 * Comment. The main problem with this article at present is that it is, at best, a summary of the primary source material regarding the subject. Per Manual of Style (writing about fiction), it ought to discuss discussion of the room in a reliable source external to the show. If there isn't any to cite, well, perhaps it really isn't notable then. If there is, I think that will sway those who seek deletion. Deco 03:05, 7 January 2007 (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.