Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buffyverse chronology (2nd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Delete. FT2 (Talk | email) 10:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a much-debated AFD about 3 related articles. In summary:

  • Proposed grounds to keep are: encyclopedic summary of series info, list of well referenced verifiable episodes (user:DGG, user:DHowell); real world value, crossref to prior and other AFD, extent of work put in by editors, validty of lists (user:Paxomen).
  • Proposed grounds to delete (including merge, transwiki etc) are: original synthesis (nom), WP:NOT a place for fan projects of this kind (nom), reference to other AFDs (nom), lack of "real world" sources (user:Jay32183), plot summary (user:Corpx), only summaries related to "real world" matters such as publisher or medium are appropriate (user:A_Man_In_Black, the nominator), duplicates footnote navigation info anyway (user:Jeff-El), WP:OR since this is essentially not according to a reliable sources but based on fans working, advancing a position, self-ref since sourced to authors own analysis, misuse of sources, and breach of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) (AMIB again).
  • Rebuttals of OR include that all dates in the "buffyverse " are sourced, often from the actual publications themselves (user:Paxomen), and

As a matter of policy, AFD decisions are not decided for either side, by reference to other article decisions, or past AFDs (WP:DP). Nor is "a lot of work" a valid argument (WP:EFFORT), or that it's useful (WP:USEFUL) - both of these are forms of arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. (However, note, the suggestion implied that fiction articles cannot include other than "real-world" organization is not correct per policy either.) The crux of the delete case is a concern that the article is a synthesis of editor's views or advancing such a synthesis, not based upon reference to reliable sources, and breaches fiction article guidelines. The crux of the keep debate is that a list of episodes in an in-universe timeline is encyclopedic and notable, and useful to fans and non-fans alike in the context of the series, and that the cites are verifiable.

I concur with DGG and DHowell that such a timeline could be encyclopedic or useful. It is a well defined, well presented list, doubtless useful, and many lists are to be found in Wikipedia. However AFD is decided based upon policy related points arising, and there are strong policy related points raised by the nominator and others opining "delete" that are not rebutted by evidence to the contrary in this debate. The main problem seems to be with WP:OR - although information on individual records is sourced and verifiable, the chronology as a whole is not. The clearest example of this is, that some items are sourced from book intros, but others just assume that broadcast date is buffyverse date, or use such measures of time and date as the editors see fit to apply. this is the classic definition of WP:OR, although I have no question it is in good faith, it's still a synthesis. To not be OR, the actual list and chronology would need a reliable source, and this doesn't seem to be the case. (But:- It's also questionable whether a reliably sourced "this is what fans think" would be enough, unless there was a published, agreed chronology, in which case Wikipedia is not a republisher of fan-info and that list would be better reflected by an in-article link anyhow).

(I haven't addressed WP:WAF above, since the matter seems to turn on WP:OR and WP:RS. Separate problems with WP:WAF are that 1/ in-universe views are useful, but are only one viewpoint, and on their own are discouraged, and 2/ plot synopses as a historical account are specifically mentioned -- although appropriate encyclopedic use of an in-universe view is not always forbidden. But ultimately, WP:WAF is a style guideline. WP:OR is policy and WP:RS relates to verifiability which is also policy.)

It's clear much good faith and hard work has gone into this. But unless someone on review can demonstrate 1/ reliable sources (and by that I think I mean, independent reliable sources, not just the views of a number of fans), 2/ related to the chronology as a whole, 3/ which are notable and 4/ capable of more than just re-hashing, and which are 5/ appropriate to mirror as an encyclopedia article, then I think the delete views are well endorsed by policy, and this article unfortunately fails to meet requirements. I have userified the text prior to deletion, in case it can be useful that way. Details posted at User_talk:Paxomen.

FT2 (Talk | email) 10:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buffyverse chronology

Buffyverse chronology (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Also included are:

This is an original synthesis of the stories of the various Buffy and Buffy-related stories into a form organized in an irrevocably in-universe way.

It's largely unsourced, in both the verification sense (there's little sense where any of the claims made here are coming from, and many of them appear to be completely unsourceable except for fan forums) and the notability sense (none of the cited sources are at all concerned with a timeline). Instead, it seems to be the original synthesis of fans, teasing clues or cues out of many disparate sources, primarily personal observation of the subject. Nowhere can this problem be better seen than in Image:Buffyverse Chronology.jpg, the lead image for this page, which is apparently spliced together by fans from various, unspecified images.

In the previous AFD (which arrived at no consensus), it was argued that this is a useful navigation tool. It might be on a Buffyverse fan project, but Wikipedia handles fictional subjects by primarily regarding their role in the real world, while this timeline is structured in an in-universe way. It's also a terrible navigation tool for the way the articles are actually organized; some entries link to nothing, while there are dozens of links to some articles (like Tales of the Slayer).

Generally, such timelines have done poorly on AFD in the past, such as here, here, here, here, here, and here. (This isn't even counting the timelines that were just made up on the spot by their author(s).) A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Will (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The article contains no real world context or reliable sources to show that this isn't original research. If this is based on interpreting plot and fan sites, then it has to go. Jay32183 16:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
It is not based on vague plot interpretations or fan sites. See the Notes and references section. -- Paxomen 01:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT. I looked through the article for 5 minutes and think its a plot summary. Maybe we can transwiki it to http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Buffy Corpx 16:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
In my view it is not a plot summary. It is a list which includes brief plot summaries. I agree that the article must be improved by demonstrating real world context more effectively. -- Paxomen 01:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Transwiki I agree with the TW recomendation to the Buffy Wiki. We could easily put a "See also" on Buffy pages. Slavlin 17:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Transwiki is not a good resolution for AfD. Generally it is best to avoid using other wikis as links on Wikipedia articles since other Wikis may not have the same rules on verfiability, neutrality.. Also we should improve articles rather than get rid of them by shifting them elsewhere. -- Paxomen 01:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep summaries of the content of major cultural artifacts are encyclopedic. they are not just for fans. In fact, I think they are not primarily for fans, but for ordinary users who do not know the material very well, and are trying to form an idea of the content of the series. A timeline is appropriate, considering the nature of the series. If some aspects are done poorly or some articles or sections are missing, that's an argument to improvement, not deletion. Otherstuffhasbeen deleted is no more of an argument than otherjunkexists: each article is to be judged individually. construction of an image for navigation is no more OR than construction of an original map, as is present in thousands of articles. WP is not constructed according to some theoretical ideal--it is an encyclopedia meant to be used. DGG (talk) 23:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
    It may be encyclopedic, it may not. I don't know, and I'm not inclined to argue about it. It's a purely subjective argument about what is useful or best or right or good.
    However, this encyclopedia doesn't summarize fictional stories except as context for real-world content, something that this timeline is completely lacking. This isn't a matter of this timeline being done poorly. It's a matter of this timeline doing something not in line with the goals of this project: specifically, it's an original synthesis of plot summary.
    Other articles with the same problems being deleted illustrates the fact that Wikipedia has historically not made a practice of keeping timelines that are similarly original syntheses of plot summary. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't illustrate that there's some consensus on Wikipedia's standards, but OTHERSTUFFHADACONSENSUSTOKEEPINAFD(ANDNOTJUSTNOCONSENSUS) would be a good argument to keep, if you could illustrate how it it was relevant. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - For several reasons:
  • Real world context - This is a subjective matter and many would disagree with this opinion - but IMHO there is a very obvious real-world context: These stories are available in the real world, they sit in shops, on people's book shelves.. people who follow them may appreciate having somewhere to find out what order to do so. Deleting this page will only make Wikipedia less useful to many people. However I agree that the page could benefit from more real-world context.
  • The previous debate - Whilst the result of the previous debate was ruled as "No consensus" by Quarl at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buffyverse chronology. In actual fact if I count right there is 17 keeps (including several "Strong keeps"), and only 8 delete votes, and some people didn't vote instead just commenting, but most comments are supportive of keeping. I know that AfD is not supposed to be simply a vote-count (though in my experience a vote count has often determined the fate of the page) but even reading across the previous debate, it seems that there well reasoned arguments made as to be why the page should be kept as opposed to being deleted, and by wikipedians who had actually given some time to looking at gaining an understanding of the article. The main argument for deletion in the previous debate was that the article was not sourced and could therefore be original research. Since then notes and references have been introduced, to show that it is not based on original research but primarily on secondary sources.
  • It's a list - This is essentially a list, and perhaps needs to be renamed something like "List of Buffy/Angel stories". It does aid navigation (by complimenting other navigation options), and there is basis for keeping and improving it rather than deleting. If this page is removed it will only make it far more difficult to navigate articles relating to Buffy and Angel.
  • It's so much work - Are people really comfortable deleting so much hard work without a strong basis - the article is verified, it is not based on original research (see the Notes and references section), and it is written from a neutral Point of View. It also represents the work of many many wikipedians over the period of a whole year. I suspect that many people who are voting to delete the list are biased against it because they are not interested in the subject matter (though they likely would not admit that in this forum).
  • An image is not a reason for deletion??? - If there is an argument for the removal/deletion of the image, the image can be simply removed (in fact I just took if off the page), this is not a reason for deleting an article.
  • Other AfD results for other articles are not relevent. I noticed the nomination says "Generally, such timelines have done poorly on AFD in the past." That is not relevent. This page needs to be properly looked at on its own terms, and yes that means voters should at least have a look at the article and justify their vote.
  • My proposal for a compromise instead of deletion - If neccessary I could reluctantly accept removal of Buffyverse chronology (canon only), we could then wittle down the list to a single page, rename it the more appropriate title of "List of Buffy/Angel stories." We could then over time more effectively demonstrate real world context (e.g. a good start would be a more effective introduction, and real-world release dates for each episode/novel/comic). I have already removed the image which A Man In Bl♟ck has pointed out may not be appropriate. - Paxomen 01:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The fact that the works these stories appear in exist in the real world isn't real-world content; this only talks about the events in the stories, not once making mention of conception, fan reception, critical reception, or any sort of other real-world content. WP:WAF has more on this.
The number of votes from last time doesn't really enter into it. This is still all plot summary, and still original research, and still in-universe. I made a point of specifically answering the arguments advanced for keep in the last AFD, except for the "I like it" or "Buffy fans need this" arguments.
I acknowledge that it was a lot of work to make this timeline. I'm sure it would fit very nicely onto a Buffy fan wiki. However, here, it does not respect Wikipedia's standards for handling fictional material, and by its nature cannot be cleaned up to meet these standards. It is original research, though; look at how many of those notes and references are blog or forum posts, fansites, or just the works themselves.
The image is a microcosm of this article's problems. It's a combination of vaguely sourced material, in a way atypical for Wikipedia, into a whole better suited for a fansite than an encyclopedia.
An appropriate list of Buffy/Angel stories would be arranged in a real-world way (like, say, by publisher or medium or by real world chronology), would ditch nearly all of the in-universe material, and, most critically, benefits in no way from this list with dozens of redundant links, go-nowhere non-linked entries, and gobs of speculation.
There's no reason this couldn't be transwikied, or userfied to use the tiny kernal of real-world info (such-and-such story exists), but this in-universe arrangment of plot summary and original synthesis needs to go. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The people including myself who worked on the article worked on it so that it could be on Wikipedia and useful to people interested in the topic, not so that it could be seen by one fan every month on a Buffy wiki. Is no one willing to give a chance to improving the page, adding more real world context is perfectly possible. -- Paxomen 23:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter that people did a lot of work, being useful and interesting isn't enough, and it isn't enough to say work can be done or sources are out there. When you make a Wikipedia article, get the sources first and make sure it complies with WP:N, WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NOT. Otherwise, you have no right to complain about a page getting deleted. Jay32183 23:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, they have every right to complain about it being deleted after all the work they put into it, but I'd be happy to preserve this work by moving this to a project where it does meet the local standards. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete because I don't really see anything this article adds that the much-smaller templates appearing at the end of episode pages do not provide. I particularly don't see the need for the plot summaries, as they're more than adequately covered elsewhere. A note on the messageboard/blog sources though: as the article is now, I only see two of them, and they were both published by the writers of the works in question, so I don't see why they wouldn't be considered appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff-El (talk • contribs)
  • Keep This is article is neither original research nor a plot summary. It is a list of episodes (note that episode titles are real-world information, not in-universe information) with short plot descriptions, ordered by their occurrence in the fictional universe's timeline. It is well-referenced and verifiable, and is an encylcopedic treatment of one aspect of an academic field of study (see Buffy studies). The original research policy does not prohibit all synthesis of published material (if it did, just about every Wikipedia article would be in violation). It prohibits "synthesis of published material serving to advance a position". Exactly what position is being advanced by ordering the episodes in-universe chronological order? To say that policy prohibits this chronology would be like saying that policy prohibits one from listing the Star Wars movies in order I,II,III,IV,V,VI; that to avoid "in-universe perspective" we may only list them in order IV,V,VI,I,II,III. If rules as written do indeed prohibit this highly encyclopedic article, then ignore the rules and fix the broken policy. DHowell 08:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    ordered by their occurrence in the fictional universe's timeline.
    This is the crux of one of the article's main problems.
    According to whom is this the correct order in the fictional universe's timeline? There's no indication that this wasn't an original synthesis written by fans who examined the article's subject then arranged it based on their opinions. The position being advanced is that this is the correct order for these stories. You mention Buffy studies; okay, where's the commentary on the in-universe timeline?
    The WP:NOT#PLOT (and this is entirely plot summary, arranged in a novel fashion) and WP:WAF (that arrangement is completely in-universe) problems are also present and unresolved. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    The timeline is correct according to the cited sources, and logical conclusions which can be drawn from them. You say "There's no indication that this wasn't an original synthesis written by fans who examined the article's subject then arranged it based on their opinions." But there's no indication that it is based simply on fan opinions. Paxomen has asserted that the chronological order is supported by the cited sources, and you have given no reason not to assume that this is a correct assertion. If this article is "advancing the position" that its content is correct than it is no different than every other article on Wikipedia. "Advancing a position" in the context of the original research policy means advancing a novel or controversial position that is not supported by cited sources. Do you actually believe that the timeline is incorrect or do you simply think that nothing is allowed on Wikipedia unless some reliable source has said it in exactly the same way? Is it original research to say 92653 + 58979 = 151632 unless I find a reliable source for that particular sum? It is no more original research to construct a timeline, if reliable sources can be used to determine the proper ordering of stories within that timeline, even if no other source has constructed a complete timeline per se.
    As for WP:NOT#PLOT, this is clearly not a plot summary, but a series of "brief plot summar[ies]" (one sentence descriptions!) which "may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic, but not as a separate article," the larger topic being the ordering of hundreds of separate stories within the Buffyverse timeline. Each story is presented in this chronology as a separate real-world entity (per its episode or book title). Even if we removed the episode titles, it would be a rather poorly written "plot summary", e.g.:
    "Follows the prehistoric first Slayer as she is rejected by her village and instructed to fight alone. Thessily, the current Slayer, must run 300 miles in 3 days to protect an important messenger. Kishi Minomoto is a brave girl born into a warrior clan. A slayer who is trained but is not told her calling. Eliane and her Watcher spend years training together and fall in love. A Slayer operates within a walled medieval town during a period of witch-hunts. The Slayer, Esperanza de la Vega, is a Marrano and this makes her a heretic. A Slayer named White Doe falls into trouble with a local wizard."
    This doesn't look like a plot summary to me; without the context it is just a mismash of story element descriptions. The same arguments apply to why it doesn't violate WP:WAF.
    As to one of your comments below, "Reference #4 is justifying the placement of an unaired pilot into this timeline. Why do we have an unpublished work on this timeline at all?" If you had read the cited reference at all, you would know that it is not an unaired pilot, but a yet-to-be-published novel! And it is the author himself (can you get more reliable than that?) who has stated when this novel will take place in the established timeline. Shall I assume that your investigation of the other cited sources are equally as thorough? DHowell 22:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    When I wrote that, reference #5 was the LiveJournal of a now-published novel's author, whereas reference #4 was Jeph Loeb commenting on a fansite about a still-unaired animated pilot. In fact, it still is that when when I look right now. I did carefully read each of the references, save for the ones that are themselves fictional stories (well, I didn't read #1, granted, but it isn't being used for any substantive claims).
    Right now, other than for a total of two timeline points on this article with dozens and dozens of such points, none of the claims are sourced to anything but the article authors' analysis of the article subject. On top of this, this original synthesis is a synthesis of fictional stories into a unified whole, with negligable (if not entirely absent!) real-world context. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    Very well, I retract the last paragraph, as I thought you were referring to what was cited as #4 below, not as #4 in the article. Nevertheless, the point still stands, that both #4 and what is now #6 in the article are equally valid published sourced commentary by a producer or an author about their respective unpublished stories' placement within the timeline. What difference does it make how long before publication the statement was made? And really, how can unpublished stories be written about from an in-universe perspective? The mere existence of these entries in the timeline proves this is a real-world analysis of a fictional timeline, not an in-universe analysis of it. As to "none of the claims are sourced to anything but the article authors' analysis of the article subject," even if that is true, what is wrong with that? "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is, of course, encouraged: this is 'source-based research,' and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." It's only original research if the analysis serves to support a novel or controversial position, and I just don't see what is so novel or controversial about arranging stories set in the same fictional universe into a fictional timeline, especially when such timeline appears not to be disputed in any meaningful way. DHowell 23:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    "What difference does it make how long before publication the statement was made?" Things change between first draft and final version, often dramatically.
    Research that consist of examining the article subject and writing an original synthesis on that subject is original research. This isn't examining sources and writing an article; it's examining the subject and writing an article. It's no less original research than an article on the moon sourced to you looking through the telescope in your backyard. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Not original research - I already outlined my case for keep, but feel that the issue of OR is so important I must directly respond to the nomination. Firstly I would urge anyone voting to have a careful read of Wikipedia:No original research. Then haveing a good look at the Notes and references sectionwhich looks something like:
    1. Ouellette, Jennifer (2006). The Physics of the Buffyverse. Penguin. ISBN 0143038621. 
    2. "Spike, Old Times", Forum. Newsarama.Com (August 31, 2005).
    3. "Jeph Loeb Spills News, Not Blood, About Buffy The Animated Series... ", FanBoyPlanet.com (2004)
    4. DeCandido, Keith R.A., "tiny excerpt from The Deathless" KRAD's Inaccurate Guide to Life (August 8, 2006).
    5. Levy, Robert Joseph, "Go Ask Malice", Pocket Books (2006). Includes fictional dated diary entries throughout.
    • Tales of the Slayer prose stories are given dates on the contents page for volumes two and three, and at the start of each story for volumes one to four.
    • Buffy television episodes are listed by order of air dates.
    • Angel television episodes are listed by order of air dates.
    • Many novels and graphic novels feature "Historian notes" on an opening page of the book. For example Mariotte, Jeff, ANGEL: Stranger to the Sun, Pocket Books page iv, "Historian's note: This story takes place in the second half of the second season."
    • The WB Buffy promo, "History of the Slayer", states specific dates.
    • Tales of the Slayer prose stories are given dates on the contents page for volumes one, two and three, and at the start of each story for volumes one to four.
    • Many novels and graphic novels feature "Historian notes" on an opening page of the book. For example Mariotte, Jeff, Stranger to the Sun, Pocket Books page iv, "Historian's note: This story takes place in the second half of the second season."
    I can see how numbers 2-4 might appear dubious if not properly looked into, but these are comments given by the writers/producers of these works specifically relating to a timeline placement, and actually are only footnotes to several entries of the list. The most important references are the bullet points. This is not some vague subjective interpretation, it was objectively put together using secondary sources and explicit "Historian notes" which identify can clearly result in a placement on a timeline. Primary sources were occasionally used if necessary but this does not make it 'original research', unless they were subjectively interpreted on Wikipedia (which they were not) - as I say we used explicit markers in the texts like "Historian notes" or explicit mentions of the date. Many people assume that any use of primary sources is original research. Actually primary sources treated with care can be used without performing "original research", and in this case they were used alongside secondary sources such as guidebooks. -- Paxomen 00:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    Let's look at what these references are and what they're being used for.
    • The The Physics of the Buffyverse is only being used to explain the origin of the term "Buffyverse". If the book has any commentary on continuity, it isn't being used for that purpose in this article.
    • References #2 and #3 are just the books themselves. The Tales of the Slayers stories are interleaved with other stories freely; does TotS make any mention of these other stories, or are we just assuming they're meant to fit together?
    • Reference #4 is justifying the placement of an unaired pilot into this timeline. Why do we have an unpublished work on this timeline at all? It's the closest thing this has to a reference that backs any of the claims, and it's to back the placement of a work whose placement on this timeline at all is rather baffling.
    • Reference #5 is more reading the book and synthesizing the story.
    • Reference #6 is the LiveJournal of the author of a book, commenting in passing on his book almost a year before it's publication
    • The rest of the references are just "We watched the episodes."
    This is incredibly weak sourcing. The only time anything even approaching a secondary source is used is when the primary source isn't available to analyze and synthesize.
    A key question unanswered in every single one of those "sources": according to whom are the airdates exactly congruous with the in-universe order? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    Are you suggesting that we should not assume that the order the series is presented in is not chronological? Even if there is no hard source for that, it seems a little absurd, though I am a big supporter of proper sourcing in articles. It's a linear television show in which the events of one episode often affect the following episodes, and it's very reasonable to assume that they are in chronological order. If the original airdates are too fuzzy for you, would it be better to use the episode order featured on the DVDs (which is exactly the same)? And yes, I voted "delete", but I believe this debate is getting a little silly. Jeff-El 15:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    I'm saying that when you create a timeline based on implicit, unsourced assumptions, it's original research. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Krimpet 07:58, 28 July 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.