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 No consensus. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 11:07Z

Buffyverse chronology[edit]

These three articles are all chronologies of the entire "Buffyverse" (the universe of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and an inherently crufty term). However, all of them appear to be original research - they are all completely unsourced, and read like a fansite. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and Wikipedia is not a free web host or a fan site. I would be open to transwikiing this if there is a Buffy Wikia that could take these articles, but these are not encyclopedia articles.

This nomination also includes:

Response: You are right that this article does need better referencing, however as the person who pretty much put this whole thing together, I can tell you that I used not only clear markers in the texts themselves, but many secondary sources such as Keith Topping's unofficial guides which place books in the timeline, and the Buffy/Angel episodes in relation to each other, a Dark Horse Comic timeline that was at the Dark Horse site, 'Historian notes' at the begining of many stories, as well as comments in interviews by authors and script-writers about how stories relate to each other. Putting together this article was a lot of work, and I'd really appreciate if people allowed it time to reference itself rather than deleting because they assume its based on original research because of the current lack of clear referencing. -- Paxomen 16:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely fan-written. --InShaneee 05:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As opposed to all the other Wikipdedia articles which are written by people who have no interest whatever in the subjects? Edison 23:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Allow me to address the reasons for deletion presented so far.
1. Completely fan-written. One of the worst reasons I could imagine, even worse than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Why does it matter who wrote it? The article should be judged on its merits. In fact, why would something about a fictional work/universe be written by people who don't like/care about the work/story?
2. WP:CRUFT is an essay and not a reason for deletion. To me, issues related to quantum physics are quite crufty (as I've got little understanding of what it's about). What's cruft for one person is completely normal for another.
3. Unsourced original research. Please note that this is a chronology and all of the entries are blue-links, so the sources are likely located in those articles.
4. WP:NOT#IINFO. This does not qualify for any of the 8 things listed at WP:NOT#IINFO. It's not so much a "plot summary" rather than an aid to navigation for articles related to the Buffyverse.
5. WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. This guideline includes "Personal web pages", "File storage areas", and "Dating services". This is obviously none of the three.
6. Finally, these articles meet WP:LIST as aiding navigation (given how extremely well-organized they are) and being highly informative (i.e., it's not just a list of internal links). Therefore, exremely strong keep. -- Black Falcon 06:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other Wikipedia articles don't cut it as reliable sources - it's still original research (saying that sources are "likely" in those articles doesn't help), and WP:NOT is policy, not a guideline, and is not limited to what is explicitly stated on it. I also did not say that WP:CRUFT was a reason for this nomination, but this is fansite material and not encyclopedic. --Core desat 07:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are reliable sources available online and offline to support the list. Do we need to delete immediately, or allow improvement? -- Paxomen 17:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coredesat, WP:NOT is limited to what's stated in it; otherwise, I can claim that WP:NOT a repository of presidential biographies! If WP:NOT can be applied to things not listed in it, how are you to argue against my claim? -- Black Falcon 00:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Transwiki per nom. TJ Spyke 06:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per the excellent analysis of Black Falcon. The bases for the nomination have been shown to be invalid. Edison 06:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 100% original research, as per Black Falcon's own admission. "The blue links have sources" constitutes sourcing Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia articles. Not gonna hack it. JuJube 06:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to have misunderstood. That was not what I wrote. I wrote that the sources are located in the articles, not that the articles themselves are the sources. -- Black Falcon 07:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A transwiki would be fine if some place can and will accept these. GassyGuy 07:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 08:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please clarify? "Original research" means that the information is inherently unverifiable (not just unverified). The information points to books and TV shows, which are certainly verifiable by secondary sources (for the TV episodes) or by primary sources (the books/comics/whatever themselves). -- Black Falcon 08:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment WP:OR doesn't say anything about verifiability. --Core desat 14:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. Yes, it does (though it uses the equivalent term attributable). Please see WP:NOR#What is original research?. It states that "Original research is material that cannot be attributed to a reliable source." and contrasts this with "unsourced material", which is attributable but not yet attributed. -- Black Falcon 19:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Needs cleanup, but keep. All of this is easily sourced from the episodes/books themselves, the commentaries on DVDs, and especially the books about the series. >Radiant< 09:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternatively, merge with e.g. List of Buffyverse historical flashbacks or somesuch. A list of Buffy-related books is encyclopedic. Adding the time period in which those books are set is just an extra bit of data. >Radiant< 10:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to comment a second, the practical difference between this index article and an article indexing just the Buffy-related books is that this article is attempting to organize information related to the Buffy franchise across all media types (books, television, comics, films, etc). It seems to me to be a fairly useful sounding means of organizing the large amount of information available on the franchise, and places all these varied articles in some sort of chronological perspective for the reader. Personally I think this sort of indexing also sounds like a possibly useful idea for similar cross-media franchises, such as Star Wars or Star Trek, etc. Dugwiki 22:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's perfectly valid reasons. This article tells us nothing about the comparative real-world significance of the works of fiction listed and, as an unsourced guide to how they interrelate, is an unpublished synthesis of published material. Yes, Black Falcon, we are all well aware that WP:CRUFT is not a policy. However, it is a succinct way of expressing the spirit of policies and guidelines like WP:A, WP:FICT, WP:WAF and WP:NOT. WP:NOT does not contain a section entitled "Wikipedia is not for listing all fictional spin-off materials from 1990's television series 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' in the order in which they seem to be set". However, as reasonably intelligent and literate human beings, we can probably take it as read. -- IslaySolomon | talk 10:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT should be used as the policy states, or it should not be used at all. -- Paxomen 17:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Pax. The argument that "policy might not actually say this violates anything, but in my opinion it should" doesn't hold water. Either it breaks the policy as written or it doesn't. There's a good reason the words "cruft" and "trivia" don't appear in WP:NOT, and that's because there is not strong consensus on how or when to delete articles based on those criteria or even how to properly define those terms. Dugwiki 21:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but needs cited sources and a cleanup. --RazorICE talk C @ 12:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as most of the reasons for deletion are either invalid or little more than veild ad homium attacks. Furthermore there are many, many, many other fictional chronologies on Wikipedia. If one is voted for deletion on grounds that can be applied to all of them, then ALL of them need to be deleted. Singling out a single article for deletion by processes that can be used to delete an entire category of articles is just wasteful. The Simple precidence of other chronologies is a good piece of evidence to keep this one. Especially if the others are not being threatened with deletion. -- Majin Gojira 12:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:ALLORNOTHING -- IslaySolomon | talk 12:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Second inapplicable due to the nature of the comment. The reasoning given for the deletion can, by and large, be equally applied to the others (as the term "Fancruft" has about as much bearing as the term Mary Sue in how it is used commonly and liberally), it is not specific to the article, therefore, I mention the others. Unless there is a specific reason to delete the article that only applies to this article, then there is no reason to delete it, making the entire argument disingenuous. -- Majin Gojira 13:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The essay referred to by IslaySolomon states prominently that is is just someone's opinion and not a policy or even a guideline, so it counts for no more than anyone else's opinion to the contrary. It also explicitly says "it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged." Edison 23:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Black Falcon's reasoning. Can always been cleaned up, etc. but AFD is not a place to judge content. The claim that it's not sourced doesn't make sense because every entry includes the title of the book or other work from which the information is taken, and most of these works have their own Wikipedia articles from which (in theory) info such as ISBN and publisher can be obtained rather than doubling the size of the chronology articles with bibliographies. I do have a concern regarding the images which, under Wiki's increasingly draconian free use rules probably aren't kosher anymore. But that's an IFD issue, not an AFD issue. 23skidoo 16:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Although it may appear like original research and many will argue for deletion because they think it is, I can see why people would think it might be OR. However there is actually no original research in this article. All it needs is clearer referencing. Many sources were used, including Keith Topping's unofficial guides which place books in the timeline, and the Buffy/Angel episodes in relation to each other, a Dark Horse Comic timeline that was at the Dark Horse site, 'Historian notes' at the beginning of many stories, as well as comments in interviews by authors and script-writers about how stories relate to each other and more. As well as clear markers in the texts themselves. It needs time to build the referencing, but there is no real justification for deletion. -- Paxomen 16:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Black Falcon. Sources can easily be put into the article. Wouldn't it have been better to put something on the talk page instead of (or at least before) electing it for deletion? --Dookama 17:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a time-line of a well-known fictional series seems encyclopedic --Hobit 18:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The nominated articles serve as source material for a navigational tool for Buffy-related articles; I think the WP:POINT policy would successfully argue against its removal, as right now Wikipedia is served by hundreds of articles on Whedon's universe that are currently quite easy to navigate. WP:IAR is a very dicey rule, but it can support this as well: ignore rules when doing so improves Wikipedia. Does WP:IAR grant utter immunity to the chronology? Of course not. But it does support the suggestion that facile navigation between tightly related articles does indeed improve Wikipedia, and leaving a article navigation system in place long enough to grant editors enough time to properly reference the article serves Wikipedia much better than ripping it out (presumably userfying it in the process), which would require the rebuilding of linkage and structure once a referenced version of the article was posted. Witness how Esperanza, instead of being deleted, took instruction from its MfD and came out of it a better organization. This can be done here. Lack of references is a problem that can be resolved by editors with an interest in Joss Whedon's writings providing references, and does not need to be resolved by removal of the material. To remove the material and disrupt the very nicely prepared navigation system already in place is disruption simply to serve a point, a practice strongly discouraged by WP:POINT. I'd also suggesting using inflammatory terms such as "cruft" isn't very polite. — Whedonette (ping) 18:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Erm, I'm not disrupting the community to make a point, so I don't know how WP:POINT is applicable here. By this logic, WP:NOT#OR would be useless. --Core desat 04:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:POINT suggests discussion is better than unilateral action. The disruption to Wikipedia would be the resultant damage to the various navigational templates used in each and every Buffy/Angel/etc. article and the sheer manpower required to either eliminate the navigational templates altogether and/or re-repair them once a referenced version of the chronology is available; the point you would be trying to make is Wikipedia's policy of articles being referenced (I do not suggest malicious intent); the preferred method of discussion-based resolution would be withdrawal of the AfD (or failure of same) in order to allow Whedonverse editors enough time to properly reference the chronology. Moreover, allowing editors time to address problems in an article, instead of deleting it outright, (a) is a common practice in AfD, and (b) in no way contravenes core policies such as WP:NOR. — Whedonette (ping) 15:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I don't understand why this would be considered original research. I've read the guidelines at WP:ATT and I fail to see how it meets any of the criteria laid out there. Yes, it organizes the information (chronologically). But you can't write any article without contributing some sort of organizational scheme. Chunky Rice 21:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (might need some cleanup) First of all, references to "cruft" can pretty much be ignored - there's no cruft in policies or guidelines. Second, this appears to be the equivalent of a list article for an episode index for a television series. The main difference I can see between this and an episode index is that this article covers multiple related products in the same franchise. Since episode lists for television series are permitted, I don't see a problem allowing for this sort of cross-product list as well since it probably would help interested readers more efficiently navigate the related articles. The main short-coming, which appears to be correctable, is that currently the references for the "in world" dates and other information are buried in the corresponding articles. However, since those references almost certainly exist, and can be appended to this article, I'm for keeping the article in place and allowing for its contributors to clean it up a little by providing some in-article sourcing and removing any statements that might not be verifiable. Note that the article does not appear to be an extended "plot summary", and does serve as a useful index for a larger multi-article topic, thus not violating the WP:NOT#IINFO section on Plot Summaries or violating WP:FICT. Dugwiki 21:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep As valid as something like Back to the Future timeline, which has been demonstrated as fine. - Denny 21:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC) - Denny 21:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's sourced, this isn't. --Core desat 00:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - 99% of the sources on the BttF timeline article are the BttF films themselves. That's what this is doing. its as near as I can see from inspecting the Buffy timeline pulling in by the airdates and stated dates in the fiction material (for the in-universe dates, the same as the BttF, Star Wars, Star Trek, etc.) timelines... or am I misunderstanding what you are saying in reply? - Denny 00:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This can be sourced as well. There is a WikiProject dedicated to "Buffyverse" articles. If you had put an ((unreferenced)) tag on the articles and explained it in the talk page, I'm sure they would have addressed the issue rather quickly (and since when is the lack of easily obtainable sources a reason for deletion?). Also, most of these three lists consists of the canon timeline -- that's ridiculously easy to source with secondary and primary sources. -- Black Falcon 00:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wouldn't the solution then be to source it, not to delete it? Chunky Rice 17:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its a fairly reliable source. PTluw777 00:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What is? The article itself? Wikipedia articles can't be self-references. -- InShaneee 21:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, articles aren't supposed to use other articles as references. But in this case it's probably just a matter of transposing the references from the linked articles to this one and removing any information that doesn't seem to be verifiable. Things like the name of the episode, the one sentence summary and the in-fiction date are all probably quite easy to provide a citation for. Dugwiki 22:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Black Falcon. It is a chronology of a well-known television show. --Carioca 01:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, although improve by bringing sourcing into this article rather than through other articles referenced. Article is very encyclopedic as I see it, and extraordinarily comprehensive. -- Davidkevin 13:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, exceedingly useful in listing/organising what could otherwise be a complicated timeline. Are there any viable transwiki options, as in, Buffyverse wikis as popular as the one organised by WP:BUFFY? ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment First of all, this is not a "Buffyverse" wiki. This is an encyclopedia. There is a Buffy wiki here. --Core desat 05:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It seems a bit presumptuous of you to "remind" other editors that this is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a "Buffyverse" wiki (and I hardly think the inclusion or exclusion of these 3 articles would tip the "balance"), but the "Buffyverse" is an encyclopedic topic that merits inclusion in an encyclopedia and these list provide a navigation tool as suggested per WP:LIST. -- Black Falcon 05:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep All, per Black Falcon's excellent rebuttal of the wrongful reasons given for deletion. Mathmo ^Talk 04:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a load of mostly original research about pop culture. Go put it on BuffyWiki. Wikipedia should confine itself to discussing the real-world importance of fiction, and not spend a great deal of effort on documenting the fictional universes found within pop culture; such content is far better suited for special purpose projects. With respect to Buffy, that means that perhaps a discussion on how the name "Xander" has pervaded popular culture is in order, but there is no encyclopedic purpose to a detailed chronology of the fictitious Buffyverse. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see the definition of original research, which refers to material that is inherently unverifiable (i.e., "cannot be attributed to a reliable source"). -- Black Falcon 05:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Show me the reliable source, then. If there isn't one, then it's original research. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - A lack of sources is not proof of original research. Original research is something that we as editors have made up ourselves and requires that information is inherently unverifiable. For instance, a claim of membership in a truly secret organisation is original research. An unsourced claim that Tony Blair is the PM of the United Kingdom is not OR. Despite that, a number of references are provided here. Moreover, the information could be sourced using primary sources (e.g., "The WB Buffy promo, "History of the Slayer", states specific dates"). The article may have issues of verifiability, but it does not meet the criteria for original research. I hope this clarifies my initial response. Cheers, Black Falcon 06:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- definitively original research. It would be nice if this was published in a reliable source, so that our articles on the television series could reference it. Jkelly 07:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I disagree that this is original research. Almost all the entries in the list are verifiable, and the article is not using the collected information to advance an original opinion or original analysis. All its doing is indexing the information in chronological order. Far as I can tell there is no overall original analysis or interpretation or opinions implied by the article, and thus it is not original research (see WP:NOR#What is original research? for a definition that explains the difference between original research and simply being unsourced.)Dugwiki 16:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - As someone who has spent a deal of time pondering over Wikipedia:Attribution, I'm not convinced there is a shred of actual genuine "original research" in this article, it just needs citing. There will be plenty of sources to reveal why it has been organised the way it has. There is absolutely no good enough reason to delete all this work. -- Buffyverse 00:02, 7 March 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.