Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buffyverse chronology
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
— User:Whedonette, 18:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:POINT||WP:IAR||WP:IAR||WP:POINT||WP:CIVIL (Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point)