Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel episodes

Add links
Source: 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. Policy basis is CFORK and RS. Keep arguments based on ITSUSEFUL and the order of release don't overcome policy

Spartaz Humbug! 06:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel episodes

List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Why does this exist when we have List of Angel episodes and List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Because it treats the shows as a unit, with original broadcast order and preservation preserved in a way that individual show overviews will not. If you want, you could consider it a parent to each show episode list, which are in turn parents to the season articles. I'll notify Wikiproject Buffyverse and see what they have to say, I'm kind of ambivalent on whether we need a whole separate list article to cover that. Jclemens (talk) 02:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drive a stake into it. These are two separate shows, even if they share the same fictional universe. Occasionally characters from one series cross over to the other, but the storylines, as far as I can recall, don't really intertwine. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, barring any compelling precedent for this sort of thing with other series. Is there such a precedent? Doniago (talk) 05:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if there is a precedent or not- but there isn't any TV show that I've watched that I know of which split into 2 shows sharing a plotline and running in tandem... If there isn't a precedent then we're currently setting one. FinallyEditingWithAUsername (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unless secondary sources took note of this, I don't feel it's notable enough to merit setting a precedent. Also, that's somewhat of a misrepresentation. The two shows rarely actually had crossover episodes and when they did it was generally characters but not storylines that crossed over. If no precedent exists, I feel a stronger case needs to be made as to why we should establish one. Doniago (talk) 06:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The storylines are more intertwined than just characters popping over from each show. These shows were designed to be watched in the order they were broadcast, and therefore is it noteworthy. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 08:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice, but you failed to address my concerns regarding secondary sourcing. Doniago (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. How do you define a "storyline"? An object is found in one show that's taken to the other show to help the characters there solve a problem. That's part of the same story. Who gets to decide if that's "important" enough? The fact of the matter is that these shows were designed to be viewed in a certain order. A character leaves one show with a bit of information, and then appears in the other show's next episode with said information. It's not just characters making "guest appearances". Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, whether or not it's important enough is defined as whether or not it received coverage in reliable secondary sources. Doniago (talk) 17:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? TV Guide? Sci-fi magazines? Variety? What do you want them to say? Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See
WP:RS for information about reliable sources. I'd like them to say something backing up your claims as to how important the interplay between the Buffy and Angel episodes are that will justify the existence of this particular page. Doniago (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
This is actually where you are wrong. This is NOT a list of fictional materials rearranged in perceived chronological order. I would completely agree with the deletion if it was. This is actually a list of ACTUAL chronological broadcast -- the way the writers of both shows (who often jumped about between shows) designed them to be watched. This is not just a fan re-arranging of episodes, but the order in which the creative team of the show meant them to be watched, and indeed the actual order they were shown on TV.Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 08:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pointless and unencyclopedic cross-tabulation of two other encyclopedic lists. synthesis, original research, miscellaneous information. We don't need an endless set of articles cross tabulating other lists for their possible commonalities. (Risking
    Fictional crossover#Crossovers between established shows Edison (talk) 16:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Hmm. It's very troubling that the people who want this page deleted are actually unaware of its contents. To repeat what has already been pointed out: This is not a fan arranged list of a fictional storyline, but a CREATOR arranged list of episodes designed to be watched in a specific order. Buffy and Angel was overseen by one creative team, and the episode orders are specifically synchronised them. This verifiable and notable information. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 08:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it's verifiable, then you should provide a source for verification rather than just claiming it is so. Doniago (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see any real arguments for deletion that go beyond "I don't like it". Wikipedia does cover popular culture. These two shows are more tightly coupled than most (same characters, parallel stories, many cross-overs). This article presents this verifiable and, IMHO, notable information. Francis Bond (talk) 01:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arguments The arguments above explicitly draw on
    WP:CRUFT. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • OR If this is attempting to harmonize or synchronize the continuities of the two programs, then it is original research. If it's simply writing out the airdates, then it's
    trivial. Note that (e.g.) we don't have a similar broadcast schedule for the iterations of Star Trek. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The point you have made which is at first glance arguably valid is your point concerning
WP:SYNTH
. However, it's not an example of synthesis (unlike many many fanology articles are), because these two TV shows are in the (to my knowledge) fairly unique position of being the same story told through two different named protagonists and some different side characters (most belong equally to both series)- this article isn't a in-universe treatise on fan continuity, it's a list of episodes, in order, of one plot. For some reason after series 1 and 2, Whedon decided to splice the story up between two named characters.
Is it synthesis to say "these T.V. series contain the same characters and the same sequential plotline, have the same screenwriters and directors and are aired one after the other, therefore they belong in the same article."? If so then isn't ANY list of episodes article valid for AfD — Preceding unsigned comment added by FinallyEditingWithAUsername (talk • contribs) 02:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop You're being rude to me. If you want to be rude, I'm not going to converse with you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. I can only apologise. But you see what I'm getting at... Αlex (talk) 00:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For example, it is true that placing the the Amber Spyglass after the Subtle Knife is an "in universe sequence". But it's also the order the books were released, and is pretty self-evident that they should be place one after the other in His Dark Materials FinallyEditingWithAUsername (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong, there's no other way to say it. This article places two different shows into the context of the so-called "Buffyverse". It is an in-universe treatment of two separate episode lists; that it mirrors the broadcast dates as well is incidental. Tarc (talk) 16:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. This isn't a fan-made list. The show's were specifically designed to be watched in an order set out by the creators... and then broadcast in that order. It's possible to get spoilers for one show by watching the other show first. The fact that it mirrors broadcast dates is not incidental, it's fundamental! It's as important as any show's episode order. The fact that they can be enjoyed separately is what's incidental. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ambivalent: I despise the censorship-motivated trend toward erring on the side of deleting things. It originates with people wikilawyering to censor ideas that are true, but that they want to silence...and then has been spread by the kind of sheeple who obsess over "rules" and forcing everyone to obey them. The preteen busybody little girl sort of mindset, in arrested-development adults. Anyway, despite that, this is a ridiculously redundant set of data. Perhaps someone should script a way to unify the two original pages, but make it possible to separate them. For example, make one version with a sortable wikitable, so people can sort out the two series, then redirect all three to that one.--Kaz (talk) 02:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I Have a SOLUTION!: Why don't we list ONLY the transitional episodes? For example, the three seasons of JUST Buffy don't need to be listed, at all, nor the last season of just Angel. Whenever one show has several in a row, you only list the first and last. This cuts the size in the list to less than HALF of what it is, now. We keep only the part that actually provides the information the article purports to provide. --Kaz (talk) 15:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: These shows were originally aired in the order listed in the article for the very purpose of the crossover events making sense when viewing. Noticing this fact is not original research, but just listing the order of the episodes as they aired. While it's not Wikipedia's job to help out fans in their own personal viewing I also do not see any good argument against keeping it. It is factual, there is no original research, there is no in-universe fan manipulation, and I don't see any clear slippery slope to some of the more absurd examples given above. It would be nice if there were some reliable sources discussing the intertwined nature of the two shows and establishing the significance of that to each show's plot lines but my quick Internet search did not produce anything (I did find an interview where Joss Whedon talks about the possibility of more crossovers here. I also think the plot summaries are fine, they're small and explain the the crossover events. SQGibbon (talk) 05:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That is the key reason to get rid of this; "making sense when viewing". This project is not a tviguide or a fan service. That fans find it interesting or useful is not a reason for retention. Tarc (talk) 16:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to assume that you don't mean that the reason to get rid of it is because it is useful to fans—I don't think I've ever seen a policy or guideline about that. So what, instead, is your argument? As has been pointed out it's not original research, it's not a synthesis, it's not fan in-universe manipulation. If it is any of those things please spell it out for us with the relevant text from those guidelines because clearly we're not seeing it. SQGibbon (talk) 17:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can I hypothetically ask, would it be equally valid for us to keep a list of all issues of Marvel Comics ever, in date of publication order, on the basis of them being explicitly shared plotlines? If the answer is yes then I can't see any objection to this article. But I suspect that that would represent an unencyclopaedic level of detail - that Wikipedia is not a guide to achieving a best viewing/reading experience for media - and that both lists should be cut. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know enough about Marvel comics to know if the comparison is apt. In Buffy/Angel the universes were kept synchronized via crossovers being aired at particular times. As far as I know this is a unique situation in television (crossovers happen in plenty of shows but maintaining continuity across shows is what appears to be unique here). Whether that is sufficient to justify this article I guess is what's being discussed. There are a couple of things I would like to see, an independent reliable source that establishes the significance of the crossover/continuity issue or perhaps (like Kaz above) a way to combine the separate Buffy and Angel episode lists into one sortable table to allow for just looking at the Buffy episodes or the Angel episodes but then sort the combined list by air date with the crossovers highlighted in some manner. This seems like a lot of work but would eliminate the overlap of information (three articles with two lists) while preserving all the relevant information. Yes, this would be a list like no other television list but it reflects what appears to be a unique situation (and might provide a template for if/when this sort of thing happens again). SQGibbon (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A useful article for anyone interested. Verifiable, not Original Research nor is it in-universe. The article is in not harmful at all.--Knulclunk (talk) 02:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: A useful article that currently it doesn't highlight its notability over and above the two separate pages enough. Specifically, IMHO, it should in someway refer directly to the individual pages (perhaps using <onlyinclude> sections for the earlier seasons of Buffy and the last season of Angel to avoid real duplication). Mark Hurd (talk) 03:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article is extremely useful and noteworthy and is NOT just a list of fan arranged fiction. Not only are the two shows obviously hugely notable in popular culture, and their crossovers and tie ins, not to mention the original broadcast order (as presented in this article) are extremely important and noteworthy for those interested in both shows, but their chronological order was set by the team that ran both shows. A separate list for both shows does NOT present the same information. This is very important to note. I understand if those not overly familiar with both shows are unable to appreciate this, but the broadcast order of both shows is of historical significance (at least in terms of popular culture). The two shows were phenomenons of their time, and the storyline between the two was intertwined in such a way that the broadcast order of the two of them is important and noteworthy. Finally, to reiterate: This order of episodes is as valid any ordering of episodes for any TV show, because just like them, they represent a deliberate CREATOR chosen chronology. In other words: These shows were designed to be watched in this specific order. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You would greatly help your case if you provided sources backing up your statements. Doniago (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's just because no-one has taken the time to Wikify the webpage they link to instead: http://www.simonhampel.com/buffy.html Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redundant. An article like "List of Buffy and Angel crossovers" which would only include the episodes in which characters from one show appear on the other, not counting when the characters switch their shows (ex: Wesley's first appearance on Angel) might be useful, though. JDDJS (talk) 02:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The lists for each series provide the same info that I get from this. As JDDJS says, a list of crossovers between the shows may be more useful and interesting. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As it stands now, I say delete, as it's mainly listcruft. Sure, the shows feature crossovers, but saying you need to switch between the two shows with each episode to understand is absurd. 80% of this article is unnecessary, such as listing the first three seasons of Buffy and the last season of Angel, and given there's what, maybe 2-5 crossover events in the interim. What should happen is that this article should be turned into just a listing of the crossovers (preferably in prose format), as that would actually be useful. Should be noted that there's a list of crossovers (in prose format) in the individual Buffy and Angel season pages. Drovethrughosts (talk) 01:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support this approach as well. It would have the added benefit of reducing OR concerns in terms of episode order as well. Doniago (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer_and_Angel_episodes&oldid=1137991774"