Deletion of Buffyverse chronology

Comment: 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real-world significance of the works of fiction listed and, as an unsourced guide to how they interrelate, is an ''|unpublished synthesis of published material''.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  is not a policy.  However, it is a succinct way of expressing the spirit of policies and guidelines like , ,  and .   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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN||WP:CRUFT||WP:A||WP:FICT||WP:WAF||WP:NOT||WP:NOT)

Comment: Erm, I'm not disrupting the community to make a point, so I don't know how  is applicable here.  By this logic, #OR would be useless
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT||WP:NOT)

Comment: 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 #IINFO section on Plot Summaries or violating 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:FICT)

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:RS)

Comment: The nominated articles serve as source material for a navigational tool for Buffy-related articles;  I think the  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.   is a ''very'' dicey rule, but it can support this as well: ignore rules ''when doing so improves Wikipedia.''  Does  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 .  I'd also suggesting using inflammatory terms such as "cruft" isn't very |polite. &mdash
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT||WP:IAR||WP:IAR||WP:POINT||WP:CIVIL)

Comment: I don't understand why this would be considered original research.  I've read the guidelines at  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:ATT)