Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buffy body count

Buffy body count

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.
Keep - These passages alone indicate that the article is too meritorious to delete:

- 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.

[User:Dspserpico|Dspserpico]] 15:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

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 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]