Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of Buffyverse objects

2008:

references newspapers, university press books, and independent secondary source commentaries. I'm sorry if you don't find that satisfactory, but there's a large body of commentary on a franchise that's spanned 12 TV seasons, scores of comics, and dozens of novels, of which this is but a small representative sample. It would be nice if there were no deadline, but this article is in AfD. My effort has been to demonstrate that there's far more potential for encyclopedic, notable content than what this article's previous state would imply.

2153:

in, mentioning the objects in passing as part of the plot or as props in continuity nitpicks. The cited sites (I hesitate to call them references) are press releases or catalog sites (or, in one case, a fansite) mentioning licensed replicas of the objects, with no hope of insight or commentary. The former, if useful at all, belong in our hundreds-of-articles-long series on every single episode, issue, or novel of Buffy-related fiction anywhere. The latter belong in a unified article on merchandising, on which this is not a useful start.

2589:

show, Olaf's hammer appeared twice in Season 5, the Dagon sphere appeared in at least two episodes of S5, the Urn of Osiris was in at least 2 S6 episodes and referenced in others, and Mr. Pointy existed from S2-7, Resikian urns were used multiple times in Angel. Anyanka's amulet only appeared one actual episode, but the effects of its destruction were referenced throughout later seasons. Now, I absolutely grant that there were plenty of "foo of blah" magical components that didn't have any effect beyond a single episode, but

783:: "Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate collection of information." Objects which had an important role in the series deserve mention in the article about the series or the sub-articles about episodes or characters where they are important. The fact that script writers made up some term like the "Chordnash of Thagarug" does not mean that it belongs in a standalone article with all the other "Glagafarbs" and other made-up throw-away 2574:

techno-MacGuffins that appear in a single episode or so and then are never heard from again- which is what the majority of the Buffyverse objects are- don't warrant inclusion even in list form. Furthermore, there is still the problem of the notability of the very idea of the list; is there a source that says 'In the Buffyverse, objects are used in a significant way that makes them more than just single-shot plot devices'? --

2528:. A lot of the objects seem to have only trivial mention by outside sources. Many others only play a minor role in one or two episodes. What is the notability of the topic as a whole? That is, can anyone point to a reason why 'list of objects that play some role in a Buffy episode' is more significant than, say, 'list of objects used as evidence in Law and Order' or 'List of technological MacGuffin from Star Trek'? -- 1160:...identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Knowledge (XXG) may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Knowledge (XXG). 2030:, not the "Buffyverse". Just because the coverage is verifiable doesn't make the subject notable, as the coverage must be significant, and the mentions must be non-trivial. If the coverage is verifiable in the real world but the subject isn't notable, a mention in other articles relating to the series which have notable subjects would be appropriate. 2757:

quality. Good lists start with a topic you can say something about, then say something about it, and use the listed items to illustrate this topic. Look at the lead; there's little said because there's nothing to say. There's nothing to say because there's no topic that reliable sources have covered. -

2573:

It would be unsurprising to me if TV-preview type articles of the type used in a couple cases here didn't say 'This week on law and order, the discovery of a pipe wrench leads to blah blah'. There are Star Trek objects that have received significant enough third-party coverage to be notable, but the

2424:

This list is random shit. It's mostly plot devices, with a few MacGuffins, background details, and in-jokes or callbacks to different episodes spiced in. The reason it's such a heterogenous potpourri (sue me, I was doing my crosswords) is because it has no unifying topic. It doesn't descend naturally

2101:

Including the replica references? What, pray tell, are those about, if not the real world replica of the fictional item? I'm sorry, but I'm having an increasingly hard time taking your repeated protests seriously. I continue to add RS'es and expand the list to demonstrate that the concept of a list

2613:

Appearing in two or three episodes as a MacGuffin is no more significant to the series than appearing in one, thus 'one episode or so' above. The coverage of many of these objects in the references is also quite trivial- an off-hand mention of the Dagon sphere quoted in an article primarily talking

2317:

I also get the fact that you don't like fictional articles like this at all, that this can never satisfy you, and that you've put almost as much work into complaining about this list here as I have into cleaning it up, expanding it, and sourcing it. I'm sorry about that, but the fact is that there's

2854:

The real-world / in-universe dichotomy isn't properly addressed, nor do I think it can be addressed. This just hasn't made a difference in the real-world. Verifiability isnt notability. Saying a list of items is notable within the Buffyverse isn't the same as saying the list is notable within the

2697:

have now been added, and three entries removed from the list. That leaves 10 items, 3 original which have been expanded or cited, and 7 new ones. Three of the original 6 have been removed, which gives us somewhere between a 50% and 233% turnover during the AfD process, depending on how you count.

958:

reference is an offhand mention of a single nitpick of a single episode in an unlicensed episode guide". Wait, that doesn't work either. So sorry, I'm still at a bit of a loss to explain what you meant. I find arguing against a list by arguing against the notability of individual list members is

928:

Substantial. Substantial. Substantial. Not an offhand reference in an episode summary in a work that summarizes a whole season of episodes. Substantial. Substantial. Substantial. You don't have to assume good faith, you can assume I'm a horrible ogre out to get you, but it doesn't make "Also, Spike

2898:

with caveat. The entire list should be present in the Buffy wikia, but it does not have enough of a bearing on the real world to be in this encyclopedia. Someone should make sure that this list is represented fully in the Buffy wikia so that the work on it is not lost and it is readily available

2756:

I asked for reasonable criteria, not arbitrary standards. The idea is that a good list has criteria that flow naturally from a topic. "Plot devices in Buffy" would be a topic. "Magical items capable of in Buffy" would be a topic. "Stuff in two or more episodes" is not a topic, it's a coincidental

2152:

This is a fundamentally wrong-headed way to organize this information, and the low quality of the sources is symptomic of this. We're pulling scraps of trivial info from all over the place and creating a new topic from whole cloth. The sources are chiefly summaries of the episodes the items appear

2007:

The vast majority of delete !votes have not referenced such arguments, but have only complained about lack of (reliable) sourcing. Fact is, however, that in adding RS's and list items, the list article has expanded from a six-item list that referenced half primary sources, to a ten-item list that

1308:

Read those refs. TV.com's hits are all from a fan-written episode database. The BBC hit is from a brief story an action figure with a sales run of 750, on a BBC-hosted Buffy fansite. The Scholar hits only mention the Gem of Amarra briefly as part of summarizing an episode for context. Substantial,

834:

The only reference is an offhand mention of a single nitpick of a single episode in an unlicensed episode guide. That isn't substantial coverage; you can barely make one sentence of coverage of the subject from reliable sources (and I'm not entirely convinced this guide is one), and even if we did

2588:

How many of these differing items only appear in one unit (novel, episode, comic) of the fictional work? At least three (Scythe, Gem of Amara, orb of Thesulah) span franchises within the Buffyverse, appearing in Buffy and Fray, Angel, and Angel, respectively. Buffybot spanned two seasons of the

2120:

Again, when I say "references" I mean articles in reliable sources, not links to sales sites or press releases. Sorry for not being clearer; I'm blurring some different debates together in my head since I've been making this argument a lot. I'm gonna consolidate my replies to all of this in a new

1715:... which they could have said, but haven't. Your !vote is very clear, but that doesn't mean that you can magically make all the "unreferenced" !votes turn into "trivially referenced"; the fact remains that these !votes do not match reality and should be weighted accordingly by the closing admin. 1565:

because these objects are referenced in multiple published and popular works, and so are notable by any common sense definition of "notable". If there were "substantial" coverage in independent sources of each of these objects, they'd each get their own article. But since they are presumably just

1021:

We're currently at zero references dealing with objects in this particular series as a whole. Anything that would go in this list is redundant with the articles on every single episode AND every single character. The potential for referenced info that belongs in this article instead of some other

1171:

on point, not an "obnoxious distraction point." It's only obnoxious to you because of your strong desire to see this list deleted—your continual failure to see why this list should be retained is obnoxious to me. I'm sorry you find certain featured lists annoying, but it only shows how far from

2622:

there has been discussion of the replicas in independent sources, but that would be a different article. There are lots of fictional objects that rise to this standard from fictional franchises, but I don't think that anything from Buffy has reached that particular plateau. No one is writing

127:

This is apparently a list of magical objects that occur in the "Buffyverse" wihch apparently means all writing, TV and Movies connected to buffy the vampire slayer. None of these magical fictional items have received any independent coverage and this fan-site type list of non-things should be

2420:

not because it was too inclusionist or too deletionist, but because it was both. When you're breaking down a fictional topic, you need to break it into logical subtopics that flow naturally into each other. The problem is that the old version didn't do a good job of identifying these natural

524:

bear comment. What is "obvious" is that anyone viewing the published sources should be able to verify that these are significant objects within the Buffyverse. How is "interpreting ... primary source and slicing into many different subjects and sub-subjects" fundamentally different from

2186:

While I'd argue this is exactly the right format (well it could use some improvement, but you know what I mean) for this type of information. I'd ideally like to call it "significant" object or some such and organize it more by type. It's a good spin out article on a huge series.

2228:

So, AMIB, do you have ProQuest access? If not, can you explain why you've been making blanket statements about the references, when 5 of 26 (and the BEST 5 of 26, I might opine) aren't available to you? If so, can you comment specifically on a few of the ProQuest sources? Thanks.

977:

An offhand mention of a single nitpick etc. is not substantial. That's my point. There's no substantial coverage of these objects as a group or individually; all of the sources deal with them as minor aspects of the story not worth individual mention, and we should as well. -

2542:

Can you find even a "trivial" level of coverage for evidence objects in Law & Order in third-party reliable sources? And we have various lists of Star Trek objects, but you'd probably argue that those should be deleted as well. I'm actually surprised we

1675:

Seven of the above delete !votes assert that the list is unreferenced, when in fact as of now each entry has at least one reference. This suggests that several of the delete !voters have not revisited the discussion since improvements have been made.

261:

that a list like this is something an encyclopedia should be covering. I also don't think that a content fork justifies perpetrating this fork- if an article becomes so bloated that content needs to be spun out, please make sure it can

2053:

OK, added some real world info, by way of replicas for a few of the items. I'm not really sure what reasonable real world impact you expect notable fictional elements to have, but give me some ideas and I'll see what else I can find.

603:

The fictional works themselves are the reliable sources offering significant commentary. The third-party references show notability (maybe not notability enough for a separate article, but notability enough for a mention in a list).

1098:

stuff exists, stuff considered the best that Knowledge (XXG) has to offer, showing that Knowledge (XXG) does not require a list of things to be sourced from a single source, but can be collected from multiple disparate sources. And

1850:

I've looked and I can not find any substantial coverage of the work's real-world development, reception, and significance apropos of these objects or the general list of them. In short, this hasn't made a difference in the

1211:

They're both lists that your specific arguments would deem deletion-worthy, but at least one is considered "the best of Knowledge (XXG)". And I don't believe critera which would delete our best content is useful.

644:

Only for independent articles on each item, not for them to appear in a list—and only according to a guideline which is subject to reasonable exceptions. And we have all three, just not all from the same source.

2712:

Arbitrary criteria don't really improve this list much. How does appearing in two consecutive episodes matter more than one? How do more references that devote a half-sentence to the object help the article? -

618:

The works of fiction are already summarized in explicit detail elsewhere, and they aren't independent. The third-party references are not significant. Significant, independent, reliable. You need all three. -

1226:

I'm not interested in an argument by exhaustion where you make me figure out what you're talking about. Explain why they're related and what my arguments have to do with it or stop wasting everyone's time. -

1859:

perspective which isn't appropriate for Knowledge (XXG). Cleaning up an article with such fundamental flaws as these cannot help it as you can't create encyclopedic coverage when none exists to begin with.

1654:

Were any of these objects a significant element of the plot in the works in which they appeared? Did any of them do something significant like render people invincible, restore souls, or trap demons?

2899:

for the show's fans (myself included) to read and reference. Once a confirmation that the list is reproduced or represented in it's entirety in the appropriate wkia, it should be deleted from here.

2265:

So. All of them mention the objects briefly as part of a plot summary. I am suggesting that we deal with the objects briefly as part of our hundreds-of-articles episode/book/issue summary series. -

886:

Sorry, I missed a second unlicensed episode guide that offered a single nitpick. This still isn't substantial coverage, and novels aren't reliable sources for commentary on pretty much anything. -

1125:, and bringing them up, especially in an offhand way, is an obnoxious distraction tactic. Maybe it shouldn't be featured any more (it doesn't have inline refs, grouse grouse grouse). I don't know. 1793:

Well, yes, the list was certainly incomplete because it lacked Buffy's scythe, which appeared in season 7, 8, and the Fray comic books. I inserted it and referenced it, and there are plenty of

1469: 578:

Define significant. The usual definition for "significant" in this context is "stuff for which we can find reliable sources offering significant commentary" and that is currently a null set. -

48:. Per arguments on lack of non-trivial coverage. May be useful for the Buffy Wikia, but we don't have a template for that and I don't know any of the admins on that wiki to do an import. 1962:

Added three more entries (Buffy bot, Mr. Pointy, and Dagon sphere) with at least one RS reference each. There's potential for expansion beyond this, of course, but the article has now been

2425:

from anything else, and the only object rising even close to the "understanding a work" level is the scythe, because it's such a twisting path through Fray to the last season to the comic.

2618:, in my opinion, to consider their coverage in independent sources anything other than trivial. There might be a rationale for an article covering the reproduction items made and sold 1848:

The coverage of a fictional work should not be a mere plot summary. A summary should facilitate substantial coverage of the work's real-world development, reception, and significance.

2623:'Technology of the Buffyverse' books because Buffy, as a series, had much more of a character focus and tended to use objects like this just as frequently-discarded plot devices. -- 1186:

Well, if we every have a deletion debate on an article even remotely similar, you can trot that one out. In the meantime, the only thing they have in common is that they're lists. -

393:

and expand. I rather doubt the list is finished at this point. The objects need to be sourced by explicit reference to the primary source,as appropriate for this sort of content.

1069:

Other stuff does indeed exist. In the meantime, this is culled from trivial references in a variety of sources which are not chiefly about this subject, or just plain old OR. -

1164: 1052: 2669: 2417: 1438: 120: 1980:

As I mentioned, I fail to see how these updates have addressed concerns from people who claim that the scope and subject of this article aren't fit for an encyclopedia per

2161:

This is trivia from either low-quality or off-topic sources, with little standard for inclusion. It's everything wrong with "Things from fictional universe" articles. -

817: 1921: 1909: 2262:

Ref #18 is a local daily reviewing the first collection of the season eight comic, again, only mentioning things in context. It does make the Fray connection, though.

1905: 1580:

Some objects with a similar amount of coverage in these sources: Angel's vest in one flashback scene, Xander's Jell-o, the light switch in a demon's apartment. -

87: 82: 2155:

Currently, this list has no references that set some sort of topic or standard. The only implicit standard is important (enough) to the fictional universe, with

91: 2797:

have been addressed. The article has merely been prettied up to make it look nice, although it is still fundamentally a few things which Knowledge (XXG) is

954:

How about you take a couple of those extra substantials and move them back to refactor your previous comments so they're actually accurate? As in "The only

74: 1925: 868:

The only reference to what? There's way more than that if you follow the Google Books search. Remember, that a mention in an independent, reliable

1802: 659:

Again, the number of significant, independent, reliable sources on the topic of random stuff in Buffy is zero, because it's not much of a topic. -

1798: 1507: 2256:

Ref #4 (which was a pain to find because it was misnamed) is an episode review that doesn't even mention the plot point stated in our article.

1287: 2253:

Ref #3 is a capsule review column that summarizes the day's shows, used only to claim that such-and-such object is in such-and-such episode.

2772: 2728: 2447: 2402: 2355: 2305: 2280: 2216: 2176: 2136: 2091: 1744: 1705: 1642: 1595: 1324: 1242: 1201: 1147: 1084: 1037: 993: 944: 901: 858: 717: 674: 634: 593: 554: 510: 469: 364: 289:

Non-notable objects that don't even belong in the Buffyverse article. The context of these objects are explained in their parent articles.

2290:

BTW, it didn't take ProQuest access; the only one I needed to register for through other means was #18, and that was free registration. -

1729:

I said "no sources" above, even though I saw the bad sources in the article. Unreferenced can just as easily mean "no good references." -

2875: 2821: 2042: 1996: 1872: 333: 1283: 1485: 1454: 1424: 17: 2102:

of these ficitonal objects is notable, verifiable, and encyclopedic, and you have yet to acknowledge the slightest possibility that

1609:

argument if it were true. After the fervency and looseness with which you've been arguing, I'm inclined to believe that it's not.

1368:

For the reasons JJL mentioned. Some of those items have been seen in different media sources, from television, comic books, etc.

1794: 1548:. Knowledge (XXG) isn't a place for this trivial cruft. Move to a Buffy Wiki (if it's not already there), it's not needed here. 1007:, not an article for each individual object. Substantial coverage is required for a full article, not for a mention in a list. 1623:

No, it's an illustration of how trivial in each the coverage in the cited links is. But you don't have to believe me. You can

929:

rips the necklace off when he realizes it isn't the gem of Amarra, but in the next shot it's back on" substantial coverage. -

2250:

Ref #1 is a review of the first episode. Chiefly about the first episode and the series as a whole contrasted with the movie.

1842:. The individual entries have recieved only trivial coverage, and the list itself is wholly nonnotable. This also violates 2383:

Yup, I'm part of a mean scary cabal and I'm conspiring behind the scenes etc. You've got a lot of work ahead of you to find

835:

want to cover it we can already cover it in the hideously detailed article on the single episode it appears in. This is not

2929: 2908: 2881: 2849: 2827: 2777: 2751: 2733: 2707: 2685: 2663: 2632: 2608: 2583: 2568: 2537: 2509: 2502: 2496: 2472: 2452: 2407: 2378: 2360: 2335: 2310: 2285: 2238: 2221: 2196: 2181: 2141: 2115: 2096: 2063: 2048: 2017: 2002: 1975: 1954: 1936: 1895: 1878: 1814: 1785: 1749: 1724: 1710: 1685: 1663: 1647: 1618: 1600: 1575: 1557: 1540: 1511: 1489: 1458: 1428: 1391: 1360: 1329: 1303: 1247: 1221: 1206: 1181: 1152: 1112: 1089: 1064: 1042: 1016: 998: 972: 949: 923: 906: 881: 863: 829: 796: 767: 722: 697: 679: 654: 639: 613: 598: 573: 559: 534: 515: 490: 474: 437: 413: 404: 385: 369: 341: 324: 305: 281: 245: 214: 185: 176: 155: 137: 56: 1291: 2614:

about something else, something mentioned once in a season recap or preview, etc. There just hasn't been enough written

1606: 2369:

to reflect your deletionist views? I'll give you full marks for intellectual consistency, but less so for transparency.

2944: 2243:

Normally, it's on people who would justify keeping something to explain how the sources are applicable. Oh well. Using

1051:

source lists all of these objects together, that neither can we? Does that rationale also apply to featured lists like

36: 1805:

references. The number of RS's covering this most major of Buffyverse objects places its notability beyond a doubt.

1411:. Unreferenced, pure plot summary. Probably a candidate to transwiki to the Buffy wiki if it isn't already there. -- 78: 1503: 684:

It's not "random stuff in Buffy", it's "significant objects in Buffy". And it's not zero. It may be less than what

2904: 1780: 2022:

Notability isn't inherited from the parent topic. The notability that has to be shown is the notability of the

1835: 70: 62: 2943:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a

2768: 2724: 2443: 2398: 2351: 2301: 2276: 2212: 2172: 2132: 2087: 1740: 1701: 1638: 1591: 1320: 1238: 1197: 1143: 1080: 1033: 989: 940: 897: 854: 713: 670: 630: 589: 550: 506: 465: 360: 35:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a

2076:

Each of these references is a strictly trivial mention in an article that is chiefly about something else. -

1830:

in an encyclopedic manner relating to these objects, or the list of them itself, which is not acceptable per

912: 2870: 2816: 2552: 2428:

Now, I don't know how to cover the scythe. If I had the answer to that dilemma, you'd see me starting a new

2037: 1991: 1867: 1479: 1448: 1418: 1167:

also cover the subject in a way that doesn't include fully half of the items on the list. The comparison is

1132:, in a way that doesn't include fully half of the items on this list. Significant, reliable, independent. - 805: 450:

Except that interpreting the primary source and slicing it into many different subjects and sub-subjects is

381: 337: 133: 2668:

Um, that would be because it never tried to be notable under the GNG, but 1) as a fictional element, under

1856: 2793:

looking over the rewrite, I stand behind my original vote %100. None of the fundamental problems with the

2548: 1917: 1103:'s a source which specifically talks about magical objects, and specifically references the Buffy series. 319: 146:

reasonable fork-for-length of a widely covered subject with many forms (movie, TV series, books, comics).

1913: 1499: 195:

No sources, no signs of notability, no reason to have its own article (no reason it shouldn't be in the

2861:

the subject's real-world notability should be established according to the general notability guideline

1473: 1442: 1412: 2900: 2628: 2579: 2533: 2318:

now nearly a dozen objects that have multiple RS references to meet any reasonable interpretation of

1773: 813: 2593:. These are the ones that made such an impact on the culture that they, for example, appeared in a 1566:"mentioned" in reliable published sources, it is appropriate to "mention" them in a collected list. 757: 2758: 2714: 2433: 2388: 2341: 2291: 2266: 2202: 2162: 2122: 2077: 1730: 1691: 1628: 1581: 1310: 1228: 1187: 1133: 1070: 1023: 979: 930: 887: 844: 703: 660: 620: 579: 540: 496: 455: 350: 239: 2478: 1768: 2865: 2845: 2811: 2747: 2703: 2681: 2604: 2506: 2469: 2374: 2331: 2234: 2111: 2059: 2032: 2013: 1986: 1971: 1862: 1810: 1720: 1681: 1614: 1553: 1536: 1299: 968: 919: 877: 825: 812:

have received coverage in a number of books. It wouldn't be inappropriate to merge content from

525:"interpreting secondary sources and slicing them into many different subjects and sub-subjects"? 377: 349:. No sources, no context, no topic as near as I can tell. It's just "List of fictional stuff". - 301: 207: 129: 1826:

in the real-world. Outside mere trivial mentions of the objects, there is little that has been

787:

used to move one episode along. Other than a gimmick to move the plot, they have no importance.

2925: 2564: 1690:

And each reference is a trivial mention in passing in an episode summary or a nitpick list. -

1659: 1571: 1217: 1177: 1108: 1100: 1060: 1012: 693: 650: 609: 569: 530: 314: 253:- Wikia would be a great place for this article, but not a serious encyclopedia. There are no 29:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

2429: 2413: 2366: 1843: 960: 1369: 792: 2917: 2856: 2837: 2833: 2806: 2798: 2651: 2522: 2384: 2156: 1981: 1831: 1528: 1524: 1408: 1404: 1159: 911:

I'm trying to assume good faith here, but your statement is not congruent with reality. In

780: 2659: 2624: 2575: 2529: 2192: 1950: 761: 451: 426:

why it shouldbe expanded. Because there are a multidude of other objects in the fiction.

263: 2104:

there may be more beyond what's been found in the limited time I've been working on this

2489: 1932: 1891: 274: 232: 2323: 2319: 1823: 1520: 1400: 1348: 1344: 776: 258: 254: 223: 2841: 2836:

do you think this list violates? I think it is exceptional on point with respect to

2743: 2699: 2677: 2600: 2468:— An indiscriminate list of trivia; besides, her tits didn't make teh list ;) G'day, 2370: 2327: 2230: 2107: 2055: 2009: 1967: 1806: 1764: 1716: 1677: 1610: 1549: 1532: 1295: 964: 915: 873: 821: 486: 433: 400: 290: 202: 181:

Can you give a valid reason to keep this article, there are plenty of problems here.

151: 2742:. Are you now admitting that your request for list criteria was done in bad faith? 2259:

Ref #16 is a summary/review of an episode, mentioning only the connection with Fray.

1945:

as reasonable spin-out article of huge and notable series in TV, comics and movies.

2921: 2560: 1655: 1567: 1353: 1213: 1173: 1104: 1056: 1008: 689: 646: 605: 565: 526: 170: 165: 50: 2432:

with my sudden revelation. But one line in this random pile of trivia isn't it. -

108: 809: 788: 764: 410: 182: 914:

five of the seven listed books appear to be commentaries or other non-fiction.

2673: 2655: 2188: 1946: 227: 196: 539:

But what he didn't do is offer any sort of reasonable criteria for a list. -

2482: 2340:

I'd rather discuss this article than humor offtopic discussion of people. -

1928: 1887: 784: 520:

Didn't he say the list needs to be expanded? So he feels that other objects

267: 2599:

article on scythes, and of which commercially sold replicas were produced.

564:

Why is "significant objects in the Buffyverse" not a reasonable criteria?

2556: 1117:

Do you understand the point of "other stuff exists"? It means that those

481: 428: 395: 147: 266:

first. Otherwise, removing or trimming content is the preferred option.

2385:

reliable sources independent of the subject with substantial commentary

775:"a list of objects that have appeared in the Buffyverse" seems to fail 313:. Entirely minute details of Buffycruft. No content to merge anywhere. 2421:

subtopics from, say, random shit thrown into a pile and called a list.

2595: 495:

Why is it obvious that these objects bear comment, and not others? -

1767:

since the article was first nominated. His understanding and use of

959:

an interesting, and possibly unproductive, per the last criteria at

1840:

Knowledge (XXG) articles are not lists of loosly associated topics

2937:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

2365:

So you don't find it relevant at all that you've been editing

820:, and keep this article in preference to a few other stubs. 1886:

per the work on this article by Anobody and User:Jclemens.

226:. This one should probably be either deleted, or merged to 2525: 2672:

and 2) as a set of content legitimately spun out from a

2739: 2244: 1963: 1470:

list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions

115: 104: 100: 96: 1834:. Furthermore, the list is a violation of our policy 1763:

per the continued and exemplary improvement done by

1165:

List of English words containing Q not followed by U

1053:

List of English words containing Q not followed by U

1822:mostly per nom and above. This list itself is not 1347:, and further lacking any evidence of meeting the 818:List of minor Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters 479:this is recording the obvious, not interpreting. 39:). No further edits should be made to this page. 2947:). No further edits should be made to this page. 2547:have a list of major Star Trek objects like the 1984:. None of my issues above have been dealt with. 1922:Talk:List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters 1910:Talk:Buffy the Vampire Slayer in popular culture 1439:list of Television-related deletion discussions 2855:real-world. The latter is what's required by 2477:Don't give the inclusionists a reason to cite 2412:Actually, let's talk about how I commented on 1906:Talk:List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes 2387:, don't waste time on ad hominem nonsense. - 8: 1846:which states (at the time I'm writing this) 1464: 1433: 1128:That reference devotes a half-sentence to 1926:Talk:Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series) 1855:at all, and can only be covered from an 1468:: This debate has been included in the 1437:: This debate has been included in the 2121:comment, addressing the new article. - 2026:and this has to be notable within the 2503:Promenence of tits in popular culture 1172:consensus your position actually is. 18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion 7: 2326:. Sorry that you're not satisfied. 1292:Google Scholar for the Gem of Amarra 2805:been established. This still fails 222:- No sources at all, fails to meet 2920:, split from overly long article. 872:is itself evidence of notability. 24: 2416:, since it's relevant. I opposed 702:Significant according to whom? - 2501:Mebbe we need an article on the 1047:Are you arguing that because no 1288:Google News for Orb of Thesulah 1: 2838:WP:WAF#Summary_style_approach 2481:as a rationale to keep this. 1904:This AfD has been listed on, 1284:Google News for Gem of Amarra 2616:about the objects themselves 2201:Significant meaning what? - 688:require, but it's not zero. 2559:, etc—I think we ought to. 1282:And here's some more refs: 2964: 2930:19:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC) 2909:15:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC) 2882:05:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC) 2850:05:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC) 2828:05:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC) 2778:05:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC) 2752:05:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC) 2734:05:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC) 2708:05:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC) 2686:05:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC) 2664:19:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 2633:20:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC) 2609:05:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC) 2584:03:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC) 2569:17:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 2538:08:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 2510:09:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 2497:08:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 2473:06:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 2453:06:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC) 2408:05:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC) 2379:05:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC) 2361:04:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 2336:03:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 2311:05:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 2286:04:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 2239:03:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 2222:04:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 2197:02:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 2182:02:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 2142:02:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 2116:02:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 2097:00:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 2064:20:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC) 2049:20:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC) 2024:list of Buffyverse objects 2018:19:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC) 2003:19:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC) 1976:19:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC) 1955:16:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC) 1937:12:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC) 1896:12:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC) 1879:09:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC) 1815:07:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC) 1786:05:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC) 1750:00:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 1725:04:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC) 1711:04:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC) 1686:03:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC) 1664:05:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC) 1648:04:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC) 1619:03:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC) 1601:03:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC) 1576:02:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC) 1558:05:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 1248:06:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC) 1222:06:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC) 1207:23:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 1182:17:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 1153:06:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 1113:06:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 1090:00:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 1065:05:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC) 1043:03:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC) 1017:02:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC) 816:into this list, much like 723:06:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC) 698:06:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC) 680:23:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 655:17:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 640:06:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 614:06:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 599:00:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 574:05:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC) 560:03:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC) 535:02:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC) 163:there is no problem here. 71:List of Buffyverse objects 63:List of Buffyverse objects 57:00:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC) 1541:15:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC) 1512:19:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC) 1490:19:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC) 1459:19:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC) 1429:19:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC) 1392:18:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC) 1361:05:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC) 1330:16:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC) 1304:16:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC) 999:22:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC) 973:17:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC) 950:16:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC) 924:16:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC) 907:16:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC) 882:16:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC) 870:derivative fictional work 864:04:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC) 830:22:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC) 797:22:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC) 768:13:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC) 516:17:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC) 491:17:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC) 475:04:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC) 438:17:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC) 414:13:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC) 405:21:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC) 386:07:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC) 370:06:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC) 342:04:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC) 325:03:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC) 306:01:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC) 282:01:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC) 264:stand on its own two feet 246:00:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC) 215:00:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC) 186:13:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC) 177:00:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC) 156:00:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC) 138:00:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC) 2940:Please do not modify it. 2801:, nor has notability of 1966:since it was nominated. 32:Please do not modify it. 2157:no reference to our own 1964:completelty transformed 1527:, and the guideline at 1119:very different articles 2674:larger fictional topic 1918:Talk:Angel (TV series) 1163:". The references for 1123:very different reasons 1003:We're talking about a 2650:- Doesn't answer the 1914:Talk:Buffyverse canon 1673:Note to closing admin 1290:. Wow, there's even 2245:this article version 1771:is to be commended. 1349:Notability guideline 2738:If you will recall 1607:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS 806:The Orb of Thesulah 320:robe and wizard hat 2740:You asked for them 2591:these aren't those 1022:article is nil. - 841:multiple, reliable 298: 244: 44:The result was 2776: 2732: 2451: 2406: 2359: 2309: 2284: 2220: 2180: 2140: 2095: 1939: 1748: 1709: 1646: 1605:That would be an 1599: 1492: 1461: 1328: 1309:these are not. - 1246: 1205: 1151: 1088: 1041: 997: 948: 905: 862: 804:, with a catch. 721: 678: 638: 597: 558: 514: 473: 452:original research 368: 332:to be buffy wiki 323: 291: 242: 231: 2955: 2942: 2878: 2873: 2868: 2824: 2819: 2814: 2766: 2764: 2722: 2720: 2487: 2441: 2439: 2396: 2394: 2349: 2347: 2299: 2297: 2274: 2272: 2210: 2208: 2170: 2168: 2130: 2128: 2085: 2083: 2045: 2040: 2035: 1999: 1994: 1989: 1900: 1875: 1870: 1865: 1776: 1738: 1736: 1699: 1697: 1636: 1634: 1625:read the sources 1589: 1587: 1500:Peregrine Fisher 1498:per Jclemens. - 1476: 1445: 1415: 1388: 1385: 1382: 1379: 1376: 1373: 1356: 1318: 1316: 1236: 1234: 1195: 1193: 1141: 1139: 1121:may be kept for 1078: 1076: 1031: 1029: 987: 985: 938: 936: 895: 893: 852: 850: 762:reliable sources 711: 709: 668: 666: 628: 626: 587: 585: 548: 546: 504: 502: 463: 461: 358: 356: 317: 297: 294: 272: 238: 235: 212: 210: 205: 173: 168: 118: 112: 94: 53: 34: 2963: 2962: 2958: 2957: 2956: 2954: 2953: 2952: 2951: 2945:deletion review 2938: 2901:Medleystudios72 2876: 2871: 2866: 2822: 2817: 2812: 2760: 2716: 2526:Buffyverse wiki 2493: 2483: 2435: 2390: 2343: 2293: 2268: 2204: 2164: 2124: 2079: 2043: 2038: 2033: 1997: 1992: 1987: 1873: 1868: 1863: 1836:WP:NOTDIRECTORY 1774: 1732: 1693: 1630: 1583: 1474: 1443: 1413: 1386: 1383: 1380: 1377: 1374: 1371: 1354: 1312: 1230: 1189: 1135: 1072: 1025: 981: 932: 889: 846: 814:Orb of Thesulah 705: 662: 622: 581: 542: 498: 457: 352: 295: 292: 278: 268: 233: 208: 203: 201: 171: 166: 114: 85: 69: 66: 51: 37:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2961: 2959: 2950: 2949: 2933: 2932: 2911: 2891: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2886: 2885: 2884: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2688: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2639: 2638: 2637: 2636: 2635: 2516: 2515: 2514: 2513: 2512: 2491: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2457: 2456: 2455: 2426: 2422: 2410: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2288: 2263: 2260: 2257: 2254: 2251: 2248: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2160: 2154: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2146: 2145: 2144: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2066: 1957: 1940: 1898: 1881: 1817: 1803:Google Scholar 1788: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1560: 1543: 1514: 1493: 1462: 1431: 1394: 1363: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1332: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1126: 799: 770: 751: 750: 749: 748: 747: 746: 745: 744: 743: 742: 741: 740: 739: 738: 737: 736: 735: 734: 733: 732: 731: 730: 729: 728: 727: 726: 725: 445: 444: 443: 442: 441: 440: 419: 418: 417: 416: 388: 372: 344: 327: 308: 284: 276: 248: 217: 190: 189: 188: 158: 125: 124: 65: 60: 42: 41: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2960: 2948: 2946: 2941: 2935: 2934: 2931: 2927: 2923: 2919: 2915: 2912: 2910: 2906: 2902: 2897: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2883: 2880: 2879: 2874: 2869: 2862: 2859:which states 2858: 2853: 2852: 2851: 2847: 2843: 2839: 2835: 2832:What part of 2831: 2830: 2829: 2826: 2825: 2820: 2815: 2808: 2804: 2800: 2796: 2792: 2789: 2788: 2779: 2774: 2770: 2765: 2763: 2755: 2754: 2753: 2749: 2745: 2741: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2730: 2726: 2721: 2719: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2705: 2701: 2696: 2695:List criteria 2693: 2692: 2687: 2683: 2679: 2675: 2671: 2667: 2666: 2665: 2661: 2657: 2653: 2649: 2646: 2645: 2634: 2630: 2626: 2621: 2617: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2606: 2602: 2598: 2597: 2592: 2587: 2586: 2585: 2581: 2577: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2566: 2562: 2558: 2554: 2550: 2546: 2541: 2540: 2539: 2535: 2531: 2527: 2524: 2520: 2517: 2511: 2508: 2507:Jack Merridew 2504: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2495: 2494: 2488: 2486: 2480: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2471: 2470:Jack Merridew 2467: 2464: 2454: 2449: 2445: 2440: 2438: 2431: 2427: 2423: 2419: 2415: 2411: 2409: 2404: 2400: 2395: 2393: 2386: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2376: 2372: 2368: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2357: 2353: 2348: 2346: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2333: 2329: 2325: 2321: 2316: 2312: 2307: 2303: 2298: 2296: 2289: 2287: 2282: 2278: 2273: 2271: 2264: 2261: 2258: 2255: 2252: 2249: 2246: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2236: 2232: 2227: 2223: 2218: 2214: 2209: 2207: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2194: 2190: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2178: 2174: 2169: 2167: 2158: 2151: 2143: 2138: 2134: 2129: 2127: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2113: 2109: 2105: 2100: 2099: 2098: 2093: 2089: 2084: 2082: 2075: 2074: 2065: 2061: 2057: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2047: 2046: 2041: 2036: 2029: 2025: 2021: 2020: 2019: 2015: 2011: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2001: 2000: 1995: 1990: 1983: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1973: 1969: 1965: 1961: 1958: 1956: 1952: 1948: 1944: 1941: 1938: 1934: 1930: 1927: 1923: 1919: 1915: 1911: 1907: 1903: 1899: 1897: 1893: 1889: 1885: 1882: 1880: 1877: 1876: 1871: 1866: 1858: 1857:WP:INUNIVERSE 1854: 1849: 1845: 1841: 1838:which states 1837: 1833: 1829: 1825: 1821: 1818: 1816: 1812: 1808: 1804: 1800: 1796: 1792: 1789: 1787: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1778: 1777: 1770: 1766: 1765:User:Jclemens 1762: 1759: 1751: 1746: 1742: 1737: 1735: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1722: 1718: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1707: 1703: 1698: 1696: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1683: 1679: 1674: 1671: 1665: 1661: 1657: 1653: 1649: 1644: 1640: 1635: 1633: 1626: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1616: 1612: 1608: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1597: 1593: 1588: 1586: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1573: 1569: 1564: 1561: 1559: 1555: 1551: 1547: 1544: 1542: 1538: 1534: 1530: 1526: 1522: 1518: 1515: 1513: 1509: 1505: 1501: 1497: 1494: 1491: 1487: 1484: 1481: 1477: 1471: 1467: 1463: 1460: 1456: 1453: 1450: 1446: 1440: 1436: 1432: 1430: 1426: 1423: 1420: 1416: 1410: 1406: 1402: 1398: 1395: 1393: 1390: 1389: 1367: 1364: 1362: 1358: 1357: 1350: 1346: 1342: 1339: 1331: 1326: 1322: 1317: 1315: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1301: 1297: 1293: 1289: 1285: 1281: 1249: 1244: 1240: 1235: 1233: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1219: 1215: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1203: 1199: 1194: 1192: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1179: 1175: 1170: 1166: 1162: 1161: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1149: 1145: 1140: 1138: 1131: 1127: 1124: 1120: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1110: 1106: 1102: 1097: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1086: 1082: 1077: 1075: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1062: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1039: 1035: 1030: 1028: 1020: 1019: 1018: 1014: 1010: 1006: 1002: 1001: 1000: 995: 991: 986: 984: 976: 975: 974: 970: 966: 962: 957: 953: 952: 951: 946: 942: 937: 935: 927: 926: 925: 921: 917: 913: 910: 909: 908: 903: 899: 894: 892: 885: 884: 883: 879: 875: 871: 867: 866: 865: 860: 856: 851: 849: 842: 838: 833: 832: 831: 827: 823: 819: 815: 811: 810:Gem of Amarra 807: 803: 800: 798: 794: 790: 786: 782: 778: 774: 771: 769: 766: 763: 759: 755: 752: 724: 719: 715: 710: 708: 701: 700: 699: 695: 691: 687: 683: 682: 681: 676: 672: 667: 665: 658: 657: 656: 652: 648: 643: 642: 641: 636: 632: 627: 625: 617: 616: 615: 611: 607: 602: 601: 600: 595: 591: 586: 584: 577: 576: 575: 571: 567: 563: 562: 561: 556: 552: 547: 545: 538: 537: 536: 532: 528: 523: 519: 518: 517: 512: 508: 503: 501: 494: 493: 492: 488: 484: 483: 478: 477: 476: 471: 467: 462: 460: 453: 449: 448: 447: 446: 439: 435: 431: 430: 425: 424: 423: 422: 421: 420: 415: 412: 408: 407: 406: 402: 398: 397: 392: 389: 387: 383: 379: 378:Quistisffviii 376: 375:Merge or Keep 373: 371: 366: 362: 357: 355: 348: 345: 343: 339: 335: 334:70.29.213.241 331: 328: 326: 321: 316: 312: 309: 307: 303: 299: 288: 285: 283: 280: 279: 273: 271: 265: 260: 256: 252: 249: 247: 241: 236: 229: 225: 221: 218: 216: 213: 211: 206: 198: 194: 191: 187: 184: 180: 179: 178: 175: 174: 169: 162: 159: 157: 153: 149: 145: 142: 141: 140: 139: 135: 131: 130:Bali ultimate 122: 117: 110: 106: 102: 98: 93: 89: 84: 80: 76: 72: 68: 67: 64: 61: 59: 58: 55: 54: 47: 40: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 2939: 2936: 2913: 2895: 2890: 2864: 2860: 2810: 2802: 2794: 2790: 2761: 2717: 2694: 2654:question. -- 2647: 2625:Clay Collier 2619: 2615: 2594: 2590: 2576:Clay Collier 2544: 2530:Clay Collier 2518: 2490: 2484: 2465: 2436: 2418:the old FICT 2391: 2344: 2294: 2269: 2205: 2165: 2125: 2103: 2080: 2031: 2027: 2023: 1985: 1959: 1942: 1901: 1883: 1861: 1852: 1847: 1839: 1827: 1819: 1799:Google Books 1790: 1781: 1779: 1772: 1760: 1733: 1694: 1672: 1631: 1624: 1584: 1562: 1545: 1516: 1495: 1482: 1475:Collectonian 1465: 1451: 1444:Collectonian 1434: 1421: 1414:Collectonian 1396: 1370: 1365: 1352: 1345:unreferenced 1340: 1313: 1231: 1190: 1168: 1158: 1136: 1129: 1122: 1118: 1095: 1073: 1048: 1026: 1004: 982: 955: 933: 890: 869: 847: 840: 839:coverage in 836: 801: 772: 753: 706: 685: 663: 623: 582: 543: 521: 499: 480: 458: 427: 394: 390: 374: 353: 346: 329: 315:Doctorfluffy 310: 286: 275: 269: 250: 220:Delete/Merge 219: 200: 192: 164: 160: 143: 126: 49: 45: 43: 31: 28: 2553:transporter 1884:Strong keep 1795:Google News 1761:Strong Keep 956:substantial 837:substantial 2549:replicator 2505:;) G'day, 2028:real world 1853:real world 1343:as wholly 843:sources.- 785:Macguffins 758:WP:FICTION 259:indication 228:Buffyverse 199:article). 197:Buffyverse 2809:as well. 2759:A Man In 2715:A Man In 2479:WP:HOTTIE 2434:A Man In 2389:A Man In 2342:A Man In 2292:A Man In 2267:A Man In 2203:A Man In 2163:A Man In 2123:A Man In 2078:A Man In 1828:discussed 1731:A Man In 1692:A Man In 1629:A Man In 1582:A Man In 1311:A Man In 1229:A Man In 1188:A Man In 1134:A Man In 1071:A Man In 1024:A Man In 980:A Man In 931:A Man In 888:A Man In 845:A Man In 704:A Man In 661:A Man In 621:A Man In 580:A Man In 541:A Man In 497:A Man In 456:A Man In 351:A Man In 330:Transwiki 234:Marcusmax 128:deleted. 2842:Jclemens 2803:the list 2773:past ops 2769:conspire 2744:Jclemens 2729:past ops 2725:conspire 2700:Jclemens 2678:Jclemens 2652:so what? 2601:Jclemens 2557:holodeck 2448:past ops 2444:conspire 2403:past ops 2399:conspire 2371:Jclemens 2356:past ops 2352:conspire 2328:Jclemens 2306:past ops 2302:conspire 2281:past ops 2277:conspire 2231:Jclemens 2217:past ops 2213:conspire 2177:past ops 2173:conspire 2137:past ops 2133:conspire 2108:Jclemens 2092:past ops 2088:conspire 2056:Jclemens 2010:Jclemens 1968:Jclemens 1807:Jclemens 1775:Schmidt, 1769:WP:AFTER 1745:past ops 1741:conspire 1717:Jclemens 1706:past ops 1702:conspire 1678:Jclemens 1643:past ops 1639:conspire 1611:Jclemens 1596:past ops 1592:conspire 1550:RobJ1981 1533:Eusebeus 1508:contribs 1486:contribs 1455:contribs 1425:contribs 1325:past ops 1321:conspire 1296:Jclemens 1243:past ops 1239:conspire 1202:past ops 1198:conspire 1148:past ops 1144:conspire 1096:featured 1085:past ops 1081:conspire 1038:past ops 1034:conspire 994:past ops 990:conspire 965:Jclemens 945:past ops 941:conspire 916:Jclemens 902:past ops 898:conspire 874:Jclemens 859:past ops 855:conspire 822:Jclemens 718:past ops 714:conspire 675:past ops 671:conspire 635:past ops 631:conspire 594:past ops 590:conspire 555:past ops 551:conspire 511:past ops 507:conspire 470:past ops 466:conspire 365:past ops 361:conspire 121:View log 2922:Bearian 2791:Comment 2670:WP:FICT 2561:DHowell 2430:WP:FICT 2414:WP:FICT 2367:WP:FICT 1844:WP:PLOT 1824:notable 1656:DHowell 1568:DHowell 1472:. — -- 1441:. — -- 1355:pd_THOR 1214:DHowell 1174:DHowell 1169:exactly 1105:DHowell 1057:DHowell 1009:DHowell 961:WP:AOAL 690:DHowell 647:DHowell 606:DHowell 566:DHowell 527:DHowell 287:Delete: 257:and no 255:sources 88:protect 83:history 52:MBisanz 2918:WP:HEY 2896:Delete 2857:WP:WAF 2834:WP:WAF 2807:WP:WAF 2648:Delete 2596:Forbes 2555:, the 2551:, the 2523:WP:NOT 2519:Delete 2466:Delete 1982:WP:NOT 1960:Update 1832:WP:WAF 1820:Delete 1801:, and 1546:Delete 1529:WP:WAF 1525:WP:NOT 1517:Delete 1409:WP:WAF 1407:, and 1405:WP:NOT 1399:Fails 1397:Delete 1351:. — 1341:Delete 1094:Other 1049:single 789:Edison 781:WP:NOT 773:Delete 765:Secret 756:fails 754:Delete 411:Secret 347:Delete 311:Delete 251:Delete 193:Delete 183:Secret 116:delete 92:delete 46:delete 2877:Space 2823:Space 2795:topic 2762:Bl♟ck 2718:Bl♟ck 2656:EEMIV 2545:don't 2437:Bl♟ck 2392:Bl♟ck 2345:Bl♟ck 2295:Bl♟ck 2270:Bl♟ck 2206:Bl♟ck 2189:Hobit 2166:Bl♟ck 2126:Bl♟ck 2081:Bl♟ck 2044:Space 1998:Space 1947:Hobit 1902:Note: 1874:Space 1791:D'oh! 1734:Bl♟ck 1695:Bl♟ck 1632:Bl♟ck 1585:Bl♟ck 1387:Focus 1314:Bl♟ck 1232:Bl♟ck 1191:Bl♟ck 1137:Bl♟ck 1130:Buffy 1074:Bl♟ck 1027:Bl♟ck 983:Bl♟ck 934:Bl♟ck 891:Bl♟ck 848:Bl♟ck 760:, no 707:Bl♟ck 664:Bl♟ck 624:Bl♟ck 583:Bl♟ck 544:Bl♟ck 500:Bl♟ck 459:Bl♟ck 409:Why? 354:Bl♟ck 240:speak 209:Spyke 119:) – ( 109:views 101:watch 97:links 16:< 2926:talk 2916:per 2914:Keep 2905:talk 2872:From 2867:Them 2846:talk 2818:From 2813:Them 2748:talk 2704:talk 2682:talk 2660:talk 2629:talk 2605:talk 2580:talk 2565:talk 2534:talk 2485:Reyk 2375:talk 2332:talk 2324:WP:V 2322:and 2320:WP:N 2235:talk 2193:talk 2112:talk 2060:talk 2039:From 2034:Them 2014:talk 1993:From 1988:Them 1972:talk 1951:talk 1943:Keep 1933:talk 1929:Ikip 1892:talk 1888:Ikip 1869:From 1864:Them 1811:talk 1721:talk 1682:talk 1660:talk 1627:. - 1615:talk 1572:talk 1563:Keep 1554:talk 1537:talk 1521:WP:N 1519:per 1504:talk 1496:Keep 1480:talk 1466:Note 1449:talk 1435:Note 1419:talk 1401:WP:N 1366:Keep 1300:talk 1218:talk 1178:talk 1109:talk 1101:here 1061:talk 1013:talk 1005:list 969:talk 920:talk 878:talk 826:talk 808:and 802:Keep 793:talk 779:and 777:WP:N 694:talk 651:talk 610:talk 570:talk 531:talk 487:talk 454:. - 434:talk 401:talk 391:Keep 382:talk 338:talk 302:talk 296:4314 293:Ryan 270:Reyk 224:WP:N 172:Fari 161:Keep 152:talk 144:Keep 134:talk 105:logs 79:talk 75:edit 2863:. 2799:not 2521:. 2492:YO! 1506:) ( 686:you 482:DGG 429:DGG 396:DGG 277:YO! 230:. - 167:Zoo 148:JJL 2928:) 2907:) 2848:) 2840:. 2771:- 2750:) 2727:- 2706:) 2684:) 2676:. 2662:) 2631:) 2620:if 2607:) 2582:) 2567:) 2536:) 2446:- 2401:- 2377:) 2354:- 2334:) 2304:- 2279:- 2237:) 2215:- 2195:) 2175:- 2135:- 2114:) 2106:. 2090:- 2062:) 2016:) 1974:) 1953:) 1935:) 1924:, 1920:, 1916:, 1912:, 1908:, 1894:) 1813:) 1797:, 1743:- 1723:) 1704:- 1684:) 1662:) 1641:- 1617:) 1594:- 1574:) 1556:) 1539:) 1531:. 1523:, 1510:) 1488:) 1457:) 1427:) 1403:, 1359:| 1323:- 1302:) 1294:. 1286:, 1241:- 1220:) 1200:- 1180:) 1146:- 1111:) 1083:- 1063:) 1055:? 1036:- 1015:) 992:- 971:) 963:. 943:- 922:) 900:- 880:) 857:- 828:) 795:) 716:- 696:) 673:- 653:) 633:- 612:) 592:- 572:) 553:- 533:) 522:do 509:- 489:) 468:- 436:) 403:) 384:) 363:- 340:) 304:) 243:) 204:TJ 154:) 136:) 107:| 103:| 99:| 95:| 90:| 86:| 81:| 77:| 2924:( 2903:( 2844:( 2775:) 2767:( 2746:( 2731:) 2723:( 2702:( 2680:( 2658:( 2627:( 2603:( 2578:( 2563:( 2532:( 2450:) 2442:( 2405:) 2397:( 2373:( 2358:) 2350:( 2330:( 2308:) 2300:( 2283:) 2275:( 2247:: 2233:( 2219:) 2211:( 2191:( 2179:) 2171:( 2159:. 2139:) 2131:( 2110:( 2094:) 2086:( 2058:( 2012:( 1970:( 1949:( 1931:( 1890:( 1809:( 1747:) 1739:( 1719:( 1708:) 1700:( 1680:( 1658:( 1645:) 1637:( 1613:( 1598:) 1590:( 1570:( 1552:( 1535:( 1502:( 1483:· 1478:( 1452:· 1447:( 1422:· 1417:( 1384:m 1381:a 1378:e 1375:r 1372:D 1327:) 1319:( 1298:( 1245:) 1237:( 1216:( 1204:) 1196:( 1176:( 1157:" 1150:) 1142:( 1107:( 1087:) 1079:( 1059:( 1040:) 1032:( 1011:( 996:) 988:( 967:( 947:) 939:( 918:( 904:) 896:( 876:( 861:) 853:( 824:( 791:( 720:) 712:( 692:( 677:) 669:( 649:( 637:) 629:( 608:( 596:) 588:( 568:( 557:) 549:( 529:( 513:) 505:( 485:( 472:) 464:( 432:( 399:( 380:( 367:) 359:( 336:( 322:) 318:( 300:( 237:( 150:( 132:( 123:) 113:( 111:) 73:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/List of Buffyverse objects - Knowledge (XXG)

Index