Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Age of Worms Timeline


 * 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   redirect to Age of Worms. Notable content, if any, can be added to the target page. Owen&times; &#9742;  13:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Age of Worms Timeline

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested prod. A WP:CONTENTFORK of Age of Worms that is basically a plot recap, keeping in mind that Wikipedia is WP:NOTJUSTPLOT and needs coverage of reception and significance. There may be some reception and significance about the Age of Worms campaign, but not the timeline separately. Entirely redundant to Age of Worms but packed with much more original research. Nothing that can be kept according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge to Age of Worms. BOZ (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - note that the page was redirected, essentially a contested PROD, but the nominator restored with the PROD on it; as that is a violation of the PROD procedure, at worst, this page should be restored to its state as a redirect. BOZ (talk) 03:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * When the page was redirected, I reverted it because I thought it warranted a 7 day wait period as per usual prod procedure. It wasn't until afterward that I realized the redirect-er was contesting the prod. AFD is the best way to settle this type of discussion about what's best: deletion, redirect, or otherwise. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Wait a tic - why isn't a merge acceptable? Seems that that was proposed, and it came here for deletion instead. But I may be missing something. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 20:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Trim and Merge - There's a lot of nice info there, but it seems non-encyclopedic and/or original research. Very little of it is of direct impact to the storyline; a few of the more relevant events could be pulled out of it and merged into the Age of Worms article. - Sangrolu (talk) 12:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTJUSTPLOT. As says, Age of Worms is enough.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete A quick search engine test shows zero reliable sources. The article is referenced exclusively with primary sources with no secondary sources. Since there are no reliable third-party sources independent of the subject to presume notability, I don't see a valid reason to keep the article. Furthermore, the subject of the article by itself does not meet the general notability guideline. The content of the article is a plot-only description of a fictional work with no real-world context, it's full of original research and, as stated in the nomination, the article is an unnecessary content fork, easily meeting the criteria of reasons for deletion. Since the text is purely a plot-only description that relies on original research, I believe that nothing from this article is worth merging with Age of Worms. Jfgslo (talk) 20:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What are you basing your WP:NOR claim on? All of it appears to be from primary resources, but that's not the same thing. I'm not seeing any "interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources". Per WP:PRIMARY, primary sources can be used if you aren't making any analyses. I think WP:PLOT is the operating principle here, as the whole article is "just plot". However, the information can be summarized and included in the main Age of Worms article. - Sangrolu (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed - WP:NOR does not apply here, as all of this information is perfectly verifiable within the printed adventures. The dates are given in each case, and the adventure path was designed to be internally consistent, so it is easy enough to follow. A significant trim and a merge makes the most sense. BOZ (talk) 23:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:OR applies to the unreferenced (even with primary sources) 553 CY, 564 CY, 569 CY, 577 CY, 583 CY, 586 CY, 592 CY, parts of 575 CY, 576 CY and 593 CY and particularly c 573 CY, c 580 CY and c 586 CY, which by adding the circa means that it's a guess by the person that added that text. Jfgslo (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You are probably correct in that. That said, I would argue that in a merge, a summary should really exclude the exact dates anyway. They seem a bit too trivial to include in a summary that would be appropriate for inclusion in the Age of Worms article. - Sangrolu (talk) 14:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Possibly, or maybe the circa was included in the original story, that is to say "somewhere around this year, this happened". I couldn't say without checking the acutal source. BOZ (talk) 13:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * All that is speculation and that material is not referenced anyway. In any case, to quote another similar AfD, the timeline itself is merely a non-concise plot summary of various works presented in a non-encyclopedic format, using the fictional timeline rather than real chronology as a framework, so it has no place in Wikipedia.
 * Also, note that no reliable source has an Age of Worms Timeline, not even a primary source. That means that the timeline itself is original research by synthesis since it has not been published by any reliable source outside of this article and the timeline here is created by piecing together information from primary sources. In fact, checking directly Dungeon #124, one of the most used references within the article, I have confirmed that there is no direct mention of the dates used in the article at all. For example, quoting from page #62, "Gansworth lives in the heart of Diamond Lake, at the end of a cul-de-sac marked by a memorial obelisk dedicated to the memory of a mine collapse 70 years ago that killed more than 300 miners", this was "translated" into "525 CY - A mine collapses near Diamond Lake. Over 300 miners die in the disaster" within the article. Seeing how this same situation applies with all the content referenced with Dungeon #124, I do not see how any part of the article could be of value for the article Age of Worms. Jfgslo (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - WP:NOTJUSTPLOT applies here. We don't need endless coverage of the plot lines of works. Anthem of joy (talk) 05:59, 11 May 2011 (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.