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 (no consensus). -Docg 00:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Magic Box[edit]

The Magic Box (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
As a compromise maybe this could be redirected to an article titled "Locations in the Buffyverse".--NeilEvans 23:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent idea, which I would be fine with. Maybe we could start that article, and add places that are important (and cited) to the Buffy world. KnightLago 19:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are working on a consensus proposal here. Please feel free to offer your thoughts or edit the proposal. Thanks. KnightLago 19:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Buffy the Vampire slayer is notable, WP:NOT doesn't exclude places in a TV show, it is verifiable and can be cited as well. I would not oppose the single page option though. FrozenPurpleCube 23:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, 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 magic shop 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 magic shop, which the article is about. KnightLago 00:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Television show claims notability. This is an aspect of the television show. Hence no assertion of notability is necessary. It's part of the show. If it is a minor trivial element of the show, that's one thing, it should be merged into another article, but not deleted. Furthermore, information about the Magic Box is available from Buffy Magazine among other places. If this article didn't use it, suggest a rewrite from such sources then. FrozenPurpleCube 14:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Magazine is not a reliable source that is in my opinion "indent 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 16:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 16:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See my responses elsewhere. FrozenPurpleCube 18:36, 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 freinds 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]
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.