764:. 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.
1481:
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
Knowledge (XXG) (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. --
1175:. If this article is "advancing the position" that its content is correct than it is no different than every other article on Knowledge (XXG). "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 Knowledge (XXG) 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
662:
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.
744:- 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 Knowledge (XXG) less useful to many people. However I agree that the page could benefit from more real-world context.
269:, 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
780:- 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
808:), 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).
1073:. 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
219:, 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 Knowledge (XXG) is not a republisher of fan-info and that list would be better reflected by an in-article link anyhow).
1307:" 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.
1194:," 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.:
1504:
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
1557:
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,
1480:
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
1200:
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.
185:
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
1294:
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
1037:
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
661:
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,
1199:
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
910:
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
189:
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
Knowledge (XXG). However AFD is decided based upon policy related points arising, and there are strong policy related
644:
Transwiki is not a good resolution for AfD. Generally it is best to avoid using other wikis as links on
Knowledge (XXG) 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. --
1558:
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.
903:
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
Knowledge (XXG)'s standards for handling fictional material, and by its nature cannot be cleaned up to meet these standards. It is original
899:
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"
699:
Other articles with the same problems being deleted illustrates the fact that
Knowledge (XXG) 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 Knowledge (XXG)'s
840:. 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.
891:
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.
202:
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
868:
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
1285:
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
480:, 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
1500:
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
1179:? 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.
688:, 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
1083:". 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
994:
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. -
943:
The people including myself who worked on the article worked on it so that it could be on
Knowledge (XXG) and useful to people interested in the topic, not so that it could be seen by one fan every month on a
1231:(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?
907:
The image is a microcosm of this article's problems. It's a combination of vaguely sourced material, in a way atypical for
Knowledge (XXG), into a whole better suited for a fansite than an encyclopedia.
186:
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.
1087:
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
1319:
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
508:
1245:
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
115:
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
1361:- 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
1249:. 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).
238:
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
1115:
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
761:
473:
496:
178:
824:- 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.
367:
362:
492:
969:
isn't enough, and it isn't enough to say work can be done or sources are out there. When you make a Knowledge (XXG) article, get the sources first and make sure it complies with
554:
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.
371:
1077:). The original research policy does not prohibit all synthesis of published material (if it did, just about every Knowledge (XXG) article would be in violation). It prohibits "
504:
500:
488:
116:
1038:
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.
354:
338:
1519:
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.
678:
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.
1207:
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
1497:
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.
615:
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. --
457:
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
413:
408:
190:
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
700:
standards, but OTHERSTUFFHADACONSENSUSTOKEEPINAFD(ANDNOTJUSTNOCONSENSUS) would be a good argument to keep, if you could illustrate how it it was relevant. -
417:
1316:"What difference does it make how long before publication the statement was made?" Things change between first draft and final version, often dramatically.
804:- 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
261:
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,
400:
465:, teasing clues or cues out of many disparate sources, primarily personal observation of the subject. Nowhere can this problem be better seen than in
311:
306:
1323:
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. -
315:
298:
918:
kernal of real-world info (such-and-such story exists), but this in-universe arrangment of plot summary and original synthesis needs to go. -
1217:
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?
1640:
1591:
1586:
1562:
1546:
1541:
1485:
1343:
1338:
1311:
1280:
1275:
1236:
1150:
1145:
1095:
1015:
1010:
989:
952:
938:
933:
882:
720:
715:
673:
649:
635:
619:
602:
579:
558:
546:
531:
526:
279:
52:
1468:
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.
1305:
and other content policies is, of course, encouraged: this is 'source-based research,' and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.
1440:
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.
17:
1362:
476:(which arrived at no consensus), it was argued that this is a useful navigation tool. It might be on a Buffyverse fan project, but
1393:
904:
research, though; look at how many of those notes and references are blog or forum posts, fansites, or just the works themselves.
1511:
Reference #6 is the LiveJournal of the author of a book, commenting in passing on his book almost a year before it's publication
1383:
358:
165:
As a matter of policy, AFD decisions are not decided for either side, by reference to other article decisions, or past AFDs (
1631:
1054:
948:
wiki. Is no one willing to give a chance to improving the page, adding more real world context is perfectly possible. --
857:
350:
1654:
1155:
The timeline is correct according to the cited sources, and logical conclusions which can be drawn from them. You say "
36:
1471:
Many novels and graphic novels feature "Historian notes" on an opening page of the book. For example Mariotte, Jeff,
1455:
Many novels and graphic novels feature "Historian notes" on an opening page of the book. For example Mariotte, Jeff,
466:
404:
1171:
has asserted that the chronological order is supported by the cited sources, and you have given no reason not to
1252:
Right now, other than for a total of two timeline points on this article with dozens and dozens of such points,
302:
1653:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1582:
1537:
1334:
1271:
1141:
1006:
929:
711:
522:
469:, the lead image for this page, which is apparently spliced together by fans from various, unspecified images.
396:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
966:
1301:
Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of
1475:, Pocket Books page iv, "Historian's note: This story takes place in the second half of the second season."
1459:, Pocket Books page iv, "Historian's note: This story takes place in the second half of the second season."
1366:
1042:
805:
572:
294:
286:
1111:
is this the correct order in the fictional universe's timeline? There's no indication that this wasn't an
95:
a place for fan projects of this kind (nom), reference to other AFDs (nom), lack of "real world" sources (
75:); real world value, crossref to prior and other AFD, extent of work put in by editors, validty of lists (
860:, we could then wittle down the list to a single page, rename it the more appropriate title of "List of
595:. I looked through the article for 5 minutes and think its a plot summary. Maybe we can transwiki it to
131:
include that all dates in the "buffyverse " are sourced, often from the actual publications themselves (
631:
I agree with the TW recomendation to the Buffy Wiki. We could easily put a "See also" on Buffy pages.
446:
of the stories of the various Buffy and Buffy-related stories into a form organized in an irrevocably
1297:
none of the claims are sourced to anything but the article authors' analysis of the article subject,
1254:
none of the claims are sourced to anything but the article authors' analysis of the article subject.
461:
sense (none of the cited sources are at all concerned with a timeline). Instead, it seems to be the
207:, although I have no question it is in good faith, it's still a synthesis. To not be OR, the actual
1572:
1527:
1324:
1261:
1224:
1131:
996:
919:
870:
701:
512:
481:
104:
962:
958:
511:. (This isn't even counting the timelines that were just made up on the spot by their author(s).)
174:
170:
103:), only summaries related to "real world" matters such as publisher or medium are appropriate (
1623:
1380:
1050:
478:
Knowledge (XXG) handles fictional subjects by primarily regarding their role in the real world
270:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1070:
1161:
written by fans who examined the article's subject then arranged it based on their opinions.
1568:
1257:
1208:
1183:
1172:
1158:
1127:
1123:
1112:
1088:
982:
893:
693:
689:
682:
592:
477:
462:
447:
443:
243:
235:
223:
92:
1567:
I'm saying that when you create a timeline based on implicit, unsourced assumptions, it's
1404:
1302:
1130:(that arrangement is completely in-universe) problems are also present and unresolved. -
1079:
1066:
978:
686:
encyclopedia doesn't summarize fictional stories except as context for real-world content
251:
247:
231:
227:
216:
204:
191:
166:
112:
67:
are: encyclopedic summary of series info, list of well referenced verifiable episodes (
1260:
into a unified whole, with negligable (if not entirely absent!) real-world context. -
1108:
974:
970:
458:
454:
255:
1425:
1116:
1074:
986:
669:
555:
96:
1615:
1559:
1482:
1308:
1233:
1168:
1092:
1046:
949:
879:
760:- Whilst the result of the previous debate was ruled as "No consensus" by Quarl at
646:
632:
616:
576:
542:
156:
152:
148:
132:
108:
76:
72:
434:
388:
332:
1605:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
242:
encyclopedic use of an in-universe view is not always forbidden. But ultimately,
1524:
according to whom are the airdates exactly congruous with the in-universe order?
1192:
may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic, but not as a separate article
1415:
599:
100:
1223:, you would know that it is not an unaired pilot, but a yet-to-be-published
1084:
1490:
Let's look at what these references are and what they're being used for.
985:. Otherwise, you have no right to complain about a page getting deleted.
664:
276:
68:
49:
914:
There's no reason this couldn't be transwikied, or userfied to use the
487:
Generally, such timelines have done poorly on AFD in the past, such as
1405:
Jeph Loeb Spills News, Not Blood, About Buffy The Animated Series...
1290:
sourced commentary by a producer or an author about their respective
1126:(and this is entirely plot summary, arranged in a novel fashion) and
1462:
The WB Buffy promo, "History of the Slayer", states specific dates.
1295:
of a fictional timeline, not an in-universe analysis of it. As to "
1522:
A key question unanswered in every single one of those "sources":
1508:
Reference #5 is more reading the book and synthesizing the story.
1101:
ordered by their occurrence in the fictional universe's timeline.
58:
This is a much-debated AFD about 3 related articles. In summary:
1647:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
181:. (However, note, the suggestion implied that fiction articles
1514:
The rest of the references are just "We watched the episodes."
107:, the nominator), duplicates footnote navigation info anyway (
1080:
synthesis of published material serving to advance a position
265:, not just the views of a number of fans), 2/ related to the
1119:; okay, where's the commentary on the in-universe timeline?
762:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Buffyverse chronology
89:
Proposed grounds to delete (including merge, transwiki etc)
1432:(2006). Includes fictional dated diary entries throughout.
1256:
On top of this, this original synthesis is a synthesis of
571:
based on vague plot interpretations or fan sites. See the
1246:
1186:, this is clearly not a plot summary, but a series of "
1105:
This is the crux of one of the article's main problems.
430:
426:
422:
384:
380:
376:
328:
324:
320:
117:
Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style (writing about fiction)
856:- If neccessary I could reluctantly accept removal of
1452:
television episodes are listed by order of air dates.
1446:
television episodes are listed by order of air dates.
838:
Other AfD results for other articles are not relevent
1610:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1299:" even if that is true, what is wrong with that? "
1657:). No further edits should be made to this page.
854:My proposal for a compromise instead of deletion
8:
911:non-linked entries, and gobs of speculation.
169:). Nor is "a lot of work" a valid argument (
878:has pointed out may not be appropriate. -
1157:There's no indication that this wasn't an
179:arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
226:above, since the matter seems to turn on
822:An image is not a reason for deletion???
1190:" (one sentence descriptions!) which "
1173:assume that this is a correct assertion
147:include reducing to a list of stories (
1219:" If you had read the cited reference
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1363:Knowledge (XXG):No original research
1163:" But there's no indication that it
453:It's largely unsourced, in both the
1365:. Then haveing a good look at the
1215:As to one of your comments below, "
1553:Are you suggesting that we should
957:It doesn't matter that people did
858:Buffyverse chronology (canon only)
351:Buffyverse chronology (canon only)
24:
1416:"tiny excerpt from The Deathless"
1367:Notes and references sectionwhich
151:) or transwiki-ing (proposed by
1419:KRAD's Inaccurate Guide to Life
467:Image:Buffyverse Chronology.jpg
198:is sourced and verifiable, the
177:) - both of these are forms of
91:are: original synthesis (nom),
1167:based simply on fan opinions.
1:
1574:
1529:
1495:The Physics of the Buffyverse
1376:The Physics of the Buffyverse
1326:
1263:
1241:When I wrote that, reference
1133:
998:
921:
872:
703:
514:
1373:Ouellette, Jennifer (2006).
806:Notes and references section
573:Notes and references section
263:independent reliable sources
1091:and fix the broken policy.
1065:This is article is neither
1674:
1457:ANGEL: Stranger to the Sun
597:http://www.wikia.com/Buffy
463:original synthesis of fans
194:- although information on
1641:07:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
1592:21:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
1563:15:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
1547:09:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
1486:00:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
1344:23:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
1312:23:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
1281:22:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
1237:22:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
1151:08:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
1096:08:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
1016:03:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
990:23:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
953:23:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
939:01:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
883:01:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
721:00:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
674:23:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
650:01:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
636:17:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
620:01:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
603:16:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
580:01:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
559:16:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
547:14:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
532:05:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
397:Buffyverse chronology (3)
280:10:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
234:. Separate problems with
53:10:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
1650:Please do not modify it.
173:), or that it's useful (
65:Proposed grounds to keep
32:Please do not modify it.
1414:DeCandido, Keith R.A.,
258:which is also policy.)
1424:Levy, Robert Joseph, "
1369:looks something like:
732:- For several reasons:
246:is a style guideline.
1359:Not original research
295:Buffyverse chronology
287:Buffyverse chronology
267:chronology as a whole
222:(I haven't addressed
200:chronology as a whole
1398:Forum. Newsarama.Com
1473:Stranger to the Sun
1466:Tales of the Slayer
1438:Tales of the Slayer
1177:that particular sum
758:The previous debate
482:Tales of the Slayer
345:Also included are:
105:user:A_Man_In_Black
1400:(August 31, 2005).
1159:original synthesis
1113:original synthesis
742:Real world context
690:original synthesis
444:original synthesis
196:individual records
1643:
1590:
1569:original research
1545:
1421:(August 8, 2006).
1342:
1279:
1258:fictional stories
1188:brief plot summar
1149:
1109:According to whom
1067:original research
1059:
1045:comment added by
1014:
937:
896:has more on this.
802:It's so much work
719:
611:In my view it is
530:
271:User_talk:Paxomen
99:), plot summary (
1665:
1652:
1638:
1634:
1630:
1626:
1622:
1618:
1614:
1609:
1607:
1580:
1578:
1535:
1533:
1505:rather baffling.
1409:FanBoyPlanet.com
1394:Spike, Old Times
1389:
1332:
1330:
1269:
1267:
1227:! And it is the
1139:
1137:
1089:ignore the rules
1058:
1039:
1004:
1002:
927:
925:
876:
709:
707:
520:
518:
474:the previous AFD
438:
420:
392:
374:
336:
318:
34:
1673:
1672:
1668:
1667:
1666:
1664:
1663:
1662:
1661:
1655:deletion review
1648:
1636:
1632:
1628:
1624:
1620:
1616:
1612:
1603:
1386:
1372:
1040:
411:
395:
365:
349:
309:
293:
290:
283:
217:reliable source
129:Rebuttals of OR
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1671:
1669:
1660:
1659:
1644:
1608:
1600:
1599:
1598:
1597:
1596:
1595:
1594:
1551:
1550:
1549:
1520:
1517:
1516:
1515:
1512:
1509:
1506:
1502:
1498:
1477:
1476:
1469:
1463:
1460:
1453:
1447:
1441:
1434:
1433:
1422:
1412:
1401:
1390:
1384:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1346:
1317:
1250:
1229:author himself
1212:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1180:
1120:
1106:
1103:
1060:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1018:
912:
908:
905:
901:
897:
886:
885:
846:
845:
844:
843:
842:
841:
830:
829:
828:
827:
826:
825:
814:
813:
812:
811:
810:
809:
794:
793:
792:
791:
790:
789:
770:
769:
768:
767:
766:
765:
750:
749:
748:
747:
746:
745:
734:
733:
726:
725:
724:
723:
697:
679:
655:
654:
653:
652:
639:
638:
625:
624:
623:
622:
606:
605:
585:
584:
583:
582:
562:
561:
549:
440:
439:
393:
343:
342:
289:
284:
250:is policy and
163:
162:
161:
160:
139:
138:
137:
136:
123:
122:
121:
120:
83:
82:
81:
80:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1670:
1658:
1656:
1651:
1645:
1642:
1639:
1635:
1627:
1619:
1606:
1602:
1601:
1593:
1588:
1584:
1579:
1577:
1570:
1566:
1565:
1564:
1561:
1556:
1552:
1548:
1543:
1539:
1534:
1532:
1525:
1521:
1518:
1513:
1510:
1507:
1503:
1499:
1496:
1492:
1491:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1484:
1479:
1478:
1474:
1470:
1467:
1464:
1461:
1458:
1454:
1451:
1448:
1445:
1442:
1439:
1436:
1435:
1431:
1427:
1426:Go Ask Malice
1423:
1420:
1417:
1413:
1410:
1406:
1402:
1399:
1395:
1391:
1387:
1382:
1378:
1375:
1371:
1370:
1368:
1364:
1360:
1357:
1345:
1340:
1336:
1331:
1329:
1322:
1318:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1310:
1306:
1304:
1298:
1293:
1289:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1277:
1273:
1268:
1266:
1259:
1255:
1251:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1235:
1232:
1230:
1226:
1222:
1218:
1213:
1210:
1206:
1201:
1196:
1195:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1181:
1178:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1160:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1147:
1143:
1138:
1136:
1129:
1125:
1121:
1118:
1117:Buffy studies
1114:
1110:
1107:
1104:
1102:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1081:
1076:
1075:Buffy studies
1072:
1068:
1064:
1061:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1036:
1033:
1032:
1017:
1012:
1008:
1003:
1001:
993:
992:
991:
988:
984:
980:
976:
972:
968:
964:
960:
959:a lot of work
956:
955:
954:
951:
947:
942:
941:
940:
935:
931:
926:
924:
917:
913:
909:
906:
902:
898:
895:
890:
889:
888:
887:
884:
881:
877:
875:
867:
863:
859:
855:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
847:
839:
836:
835:
834:
833:
832:
831:
823:
820:
819:
818:
817:
816:
815:
807:
803:
800:
799:
798:
797:
796:
795:
787:
783:
779:
776:
775:
774:
773:
772:
771:
763:
759:
756:
755:
754:
753:
752:
751:
743:
740:
739:
738:
737:
736:
735:
731:
728:
727:
722:
717:
713:
708:
706:
698:
695:
691:
687:
685:
680:
677:
676:
675:
671:
667:
666:
660:
657:
656:
651:
648:
643:
642:
641:
640:
637:
634:
630:
627:
626:
621:
618:
614:
610:
609:
608:
607:
604:
601:
598:
594:
590:
587:
586:
581:
578:
574:
570:
566:
565:
564:
563:
560:
557:
553:
550:
548:
545:
544:
539:
536:
535:
534:
533:
528:
524:
519:
517:
510:
506:
502:
498:
494:
490:
485:
483:
479:
475:
470:
468:
464:
460:
456:
451:
449:
445:
436:
432:
428:
424:
419:
415:
410:
406:
402:
398:
394:
390:
386:
382:
378:
373:
369:
364:
360:
356:
352:
348:
347:
346:
340:
334:
330:
326:
322:
317:
313:
308:
304:
300:
296:
292:
291:
288:
285:
282:
281:
278:
274:
272:
268:
264:
259:
257:
256:verifiability
253:
249:
245:
241:
237:
233:
229:
225:
220:
218:
215:would need a
214:
210:
206:
201:
197:
193:
187:
184:
180:
176:
172:
168:
158:
155:, opposed by
154:
150:
146:
143:
142:
141:
140:
134:
130:
127:
126:
125:
124:
119:(AMIB again).
118:
114:
110:
106:
102:
98:
97:user:Jay32183
94:
90:
87:
86:
85:
84:
78:
74:
70:
66:
63:
62:
61:
60:
59:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1649:
1646:
1611:
1604:
1575:
1554:
1530:
1523:
1494:
1472:
1465:
1456:
1449:
1443:
1437:
1430:Pocket Books
1429:
1418:
1408:
1397:
1377:
1374:
1358:
1327:
1320:
1300:
1296:
1291:
1287:
1264:
1253:
1242:
1228:
1220:
1216:
1214:
1198:
1191:
1187:
1176:
1164:
1156:
1134:
1100:
1078:
1071:plot summary
1062:
1041:— Preceding
1034:
999:
945:
922:
915:
873:
865:
861:
853:
837:
821:
801:
785:
781:
777:
757:
741:
729:
704:
694:plot summary
683:
663:
658:
628:
612:
596:
588:
568:
551:
541:
537:
515:
486:
471:
455:verification
452:
441:
344:
275:
266:
262:
260:
239:
221:
212:
208:
199:
195:
188:
182:
164:
157:user:Paxomen
153:user:Slavlin
149:user:Paxomen
144:
133:user:Paxomen
128:
109:user:Jeff-El
88:
77:user:Paxomen
73:user:DHowell
64:
57:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1379:. Penguin.
1292:unpublished
1184:WP:NOT#PLOT
1124:WP:NOT#PLOT
967:interesting
778:It's a list
730:Strong Keep
593:WP:NOT#PLOT
448:in-universe
442:This is an
254:relates to
240:appropriate
145:Compromises
1385:0143038621
900:arguments.
459:notability
213:chronology
101:user:Corpx
1573:A Man In
1528:A Man In
1501:together?
1325:A Man In
1288:published
1262:A Man In
1247:right now
1132:A Man In
1085:Star Wars
997:A Man In
920:A Man In
871:A Man In
702:A Man In
681:However,
629:Transwiki
540:per nom.
513:A Man In
175:WP:USEFUL
171:WP:EFFORT
1587:past ops
1583:conspire
1542:past ops
1538:conspire
1339:past ops
1335:conspire
1276:past ops
1272:conspire
1146:past ops
1142:conspire
1055:contribs
1043:unsigned
1011:past ops
1007:conspire
987:Jay32183
961:, being
934:past ops
930:conspire
716:past ops
712:conspire
556:Jay32183
527:past ops
523:conspire
339:View log
69:user:DGG
1560:Jeff-El
1483:Paxomen
1321:subject
1309:DHowell
1234:DHowell
1182:As for
1169:Paxomen
1093:DHowell
1047:Jeff-El
950:Paxomen
880:Paxomen
647:Paxomen
633:Slavlin
617:Paxomen
577:Paxomen
414:protect
409:history
368:protect
363:history
312:protect
307:history
1411:(2004)
1221:at all
1209:WP:WAF
1128:WP:WAF
1069:nor a
1035:Delete
983:WP:NOT
981:, and
963:useful
894:WP:WAF
589:Delete
567:It is
552:Delete
538:Delete
507:, and
418:delete
372:delete
316:delete
244:WP:WAF
236:WP:WAF
224:WP:WAF
183:cannot
135:), and
93:WP:NOT
46:Delete
1576:Bl♟ck
1531:Bl♟ck
1450:Angel
1444:Buffy
1328:Bl♟ck
1265:Bl♟ck
1225:novel
1135:Bl♟ck
1000:Bl♟ck
979:WP:OR
946:Buffy
923:Bl♟ck
874:Bl♟ck
866:Angel
862:Buffy
786:Angel
782:Buffy
705:Bl♟ck
600:Corpx
575:. --
516:Bl♟ck
450:way.
435:views
427:watch
423:links
389:views
381:watch
377:links
333:views
325:watch
321:links
252:WP:RS
248:WP:OR
232:WP:RS
228:WP:OR
205:WP:OR
192:WP:OR
167:WP:DP
113:WP:OR
16:<
1571:. -
1493:The
1381:ISBN
1303:this
1122:The
1063:Keep
1051:talk
975:WP:V
971:WP:N
965:and
916:tiny
784:and
684:this
670:talk
659:Keep
591:per
543:Will
509:here
505:here
501:here
497:here
493:here
489:here
484:).
431:logs
405:talk
401:edit
385:logs
359:talk
355:edit
329:logs
303:talk
299:edit
273:.
230:and
211:and
209:list
1555:not
1428:",
1407:",
1396:",
692:of
665:DGG
613:not
569:not
472:In
337:– (
277:FT2
111:),
50:FT2
1585:|
1540:|
1526:-
1337:|
1274:|
1243:#5
1165:is
1144:|
1057:)
1053:•
1009:|
977:,
973:,
932:|
714:|
672:)
525:|
503:,
499:,
495:,
491:,
433:|
429:|
425:|
421:|
416:|
412:|
407:|
403:|
387:|
383:|
379:|
375:|
370:|
366:|
361:|
357:|
331:|
327:|
323:|
319:|
314:|
310:|
305:|
301:|
159:).
79:).
71:,
48:.
1637:t
1633:e
1629:p
1625:m
1621:i
1617:r
1613:K
1589:)
1581:(
1544:)
1536:(
1403:"
1392:"
1388:.
1341:)
1333:(
1278:)
1270:(
1211:.
1202:"
1197:"
1148:)
1140:(
1049:(
1013:)
1005:(
936:)
928:(
864:/
788:.
718:)
710:(
696:.
668:(
529:)
521:(
437:)
399:(
391:)
353:(
341:)
335:)
297:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.