Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alien and Predator 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 no consensus to delete; default to keep. - Philippe 23:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Alien and Predator Timeline

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is sadly not based on facts. The only cited sources are the movies; unfortunately, anyone's who's seen the movies knows that there are no dates provided for any of the following: Alien, Aliens, Alien 3, Alien Resurrection, the flashback sequence in Alien vs. Predator or anything in Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem.

The only date that AVP:R provides is a character saying that it's not October. The timeline page, however, insists that it is.

On top of that, there is no evidence of where the Predators landed in the flashback in the first AVP. Obviously, they blew up the location shown and destroyed the temple. Yet somehow the page insists that it's Bouvet Island, where an intact temple is found; in truth, no location can actually be assumed.

That's really the bottom line. This is a page of assumptions and fan synthesis. It can't rightly be called "original research"; it's more accurately just fan fiction. And wikipedia is not a fan fiction page. It's impossible to cite any kind of dates for the events mentioned; with more than half the events listed therefore having no possible dates, there's no possible use for a timeline. --Bishop2 (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as nom Fails WP:NOT on both the grounds of Wiki NOT being a place for original thoughts (this information is not backed up by any of the cited sources) and not being a place for indiscrimination information. --Bishop2 (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:N, pure WP:OR in the form of editor synthesis from various predator movies. AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   —AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: I'd put it as more fails verification. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Point taken. This is probably a more serious matter and better summary. --Bishop2 (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

...so if you have actually watched the Predator films and the Alien vs. Predator films then you should know the dates. As for the Alien films, you have to listen good to understand the time table. --Tj999 (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as verifiable and notable. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep for the reasons under the objection subtitle. --Tj999 (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Objection: This deletion process was already stopped. I do not know what you are trying to do, because this timeline is a true helper to the people who want a better understanding of the series. I will announce, once again, that:
 * Alien vs. Predator gives the dates perfectly
 * Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem takes place directly after the first one
 * The first Predator movie takes place the year it came out (1987) and in the begining of Predator 2 the date is shown as 1997 (taking place ten years after the first)
 * Aliens' date is annouced in the movie and it is said that it takes place 57 years after Alien
 * Alien 3 takes place within weeks after the Aliens
 * Alien: Resurrection supposly takes place around 200 years after Alien 3
 * The deletion process was not "stopped." As a note, this AfD is for a failed PROD, with the prod removed by a new editor who made only one edit (removing the prod) with the summary of "Deleted Auto delete since the premise for the deletion was not based on information easily available by watching the movies. Also the page is helpful in colating the available info in one place.". AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry. I thought that it ended due to the two objections in the Timeline's disscusion page. --Tj999 (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The article consolidates only primary sources to establish a new topic. While the films are notable, the transcendental timeline through combining these films is not, since no secondary sources are being implemented to provide real-world information or analysis.  The timeline is only plot detail set up in a different format; nothing more.  This topic provides zero context for the encyclopedia. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 23:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, original research. WP has a serious AvP fancruft problem, which leads to perennial recreation of this kind of article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Because it does not offer an original thesis, it is not original research. Primary sources are perfectly acceptable for sub-articles and cruft is never a valid argument.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It advances an original argument (a consistent timeline) across a variety of different sources which the original sources do not make (WP:SYN). And cruft is a perfectly cromulent argument to make. :) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Providing a timeline based on sources does NOT advance an original argument. "Cruft" is an unacceptable argument that cannot be taken seriously.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that it basically makes up a bunch of dates and locations to back itself up without the sources providing any verifiable evidence for them is kind of a major issue. I don't know if you can call it "original research" because it seems to be lacking the research part, but it's definitely an original concoction. --Bishop2 (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The films can serve as verifiable evidence. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep sufficiently notable. WP:OR not an issue here. --- Taroaldo (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability must be established by the significant coverage of secondary sources; these films are all primary sources. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Primary sources are perfectly acceptable for sub or spinoff articles. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Since when? Taemyr (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, studying a source carefully is not synthesis. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Studying multiple primary sources carefully and presenting a timeline that transcends any one film is synthesis. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is acceptable on Wikipedia. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, synthesis of sources is not acceptable. See WP:SYN, although I am not really sure that this applies in this case.  Taemyr (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep because here is proof that there is time told in the movies. This is just one example that I found at youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSdp26ahE-M --Tj999 (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not relevant if time is told in the movies. Lots of things are told or shown in movies like these -- weapons, sexes, buildings, ships, etc.  There's nothing here that places this timeline in the real world.  It's just plot information. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 23:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The films can be watched in the real world and thus it has notability to real humans who watch and care about them. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources do demonstrate thus notability? Taemyr (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That scene is not one of the scenes up for debate. I have asked REPEATEDLY for someone to tell me what scene in the films gives you a date for the "ancient pyramid" flashback in AVP, the events of AVP:R or any of the four "Alien" films.  So far NO ONE can tell me a single scene that provides a date for any of these events.  For everyone who keeps claiming that this information is somehow verifiable, I find the fact that they can't verify it to be rather damning. --Bishop2 (talk) 13:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per disproved nomination rationale regarding verifiability. Celarnor Talk to me 23:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As of yet no one has disproven any of my claims. I keep asking for evidence that any of the disputed facts can be verified; so far no one has given me a single scene where I can find that evidence. If you can, please let me know. --Bishop2 (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources given (i.e, the movies) seem to cover the matter just fine. Celarnor Talk to me 15:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But they don't. That's the point. The movies don't give any dates for Alien, Aliens, Alien 3, Alien Resurrection or AVP:R. Someone said that there's a scene that gives a date in Aliens, but no one can tell me where that is, and I've seen that movie enough times to know that it doesn't seem to be there. And that still leaves us with ONE of those movies getting a date and none of the others. --Bishop2 (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Other people don't seem to have any trouble finding them. Some are speculation and properly marked as such, but ignoring those, the majority of the events and dates are sourced with direct statements from the films. Celarnor Talk to me  02:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete due to the lack of secondary sources covering the timeline of the Alien films and Predator films. The films are primary sources, and using just the information from them clearly falls under WP:PLOT: "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development and historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot."  Here, we're just summarizing the times of the events in all the films.  And Chris put it well: It advances an original argument (a consistent timeline) across a variety of different sources which the original sources do not make.  There is nothing inherently encyclopedic about this. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 23:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is encyclopedic per the First pillar, i.e. consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on Aliens and Predator. The film articles need secondary sources, a timeline associated with those articles, as sub or spinoff article, only requires primary sources.  A timeline does not need analysis.  THAT would be original research.  The real world context is obvious.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The movies are the sources of the information and that should be all you need for sources because this is a timeline about the films. To give a better understanding of time to those who enjoy the series is what this timeline is. This timeline represents everything wikipedia stands for and I hope that as this argument comes to an end the article becomes a neutral point of view for all. --Tj999 (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Striking out editors second !vote to keep. Please only !vote once to avoid confusion. Eusebeus (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have asked REPEATEDLY for someone to tell me what scene in the films gives you a date for the "ancient pyramid" flashback in AVP, the events of AVP:R or any of the four "Alien" films. So far NO ONE can tell me a single scene that provides a date for any of these events. For everyone who keeps claiming that this information is somehow verifiable, I find the fact that they can't verify it to be rather damning.
 * I will get back to you on this, I know it is mentioned in the film. Maybe when the archaeologist is talking about the history of it all, but I will watch the film today and get back to you on this.--Tj999 (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I added a new reference to the timeline. In the "Making-Of" Featurette on the DVD, Anderson describes the story board of the movie and explains that the movie has a past which begins about 3,000 B.C. in Cambodia. "5,000 years from now", he adds which indicates that the year is 2,994 B.C. --Tj999 (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sebastian also comments in AvP that the pyramid was about 5,000 years old, so this makes sense. Celarnor Talk to me 02:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. The timeline of the films is obvious: the AVP films are set after the Predator series, and are prequels to the futuristic Alien series. Alientraveller (talk) 08:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because something is obvious is not a reason for us not to have an article on it. Regards, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 15:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is valuable information that is not so obvious to most. And besides, most things on wikipedia are obvious.--Tj999 (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with Alien vs. Predator (franchise). If, as claimed above, the years check out, this timeline would complement the franchise article quite well for understanding. – sgeureka t•c 09:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research and failing verifiability -- Whpq (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But it isn't original research and is verfiable. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 15:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We're still waiting on where to verify the date of AVP:R or any of the standalone Alien movies. No one can cite any scenes in those movies that mention dates, although I can cite a scene in AVP:R which actually DISPROVES the date given on the timeline, although that's it. So far it seems there are no dates there, although they did come up with some logic for the AVP "ancient pyramid" flashback date up above and that's it. --Bishop2 (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, I actually agree with the AvP:R statement because it might actually take place in November. So, I guess we need to wait for the dvd to come out so that we can figure out the exact time. As for the Alien films I do know that in Aliens when Ripley wakes up Carter Burke tells her how long she has been asleep. --Tj999 (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The films are obviously notable, but this timeline isn't. No coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This is just extraneous plot summary. PC78 (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This timeline stands to show all the films of the series together in their chronological order with breif descriptions. It is merly to give people a sense of time for the series. This is a helpful page and it should be here on wikipedia as it's own page or merged in with the Alien vs. Predator series.--Tj999 (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A brief overview should be given in that article. It's not so complicated as to require an article of its own. PC78 (talk) 02:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Then you're arguing for a merge and redirect without deletion per the GFDL. There is no reason to outright delete the article and in the worst case it would be merged and redirected without deletion.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Erm, no I'm not. If it's oh so necessary to explain the chronological order of the films, then it can be done so in one or two sentences. I'm not suggesting that we keep any of this rather cruft like timeline. PC78 (talk) 12:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A legitimate search term in the worst case scenario would be redirected without deletion. We only must delete copy vios, personal attacks, and hoaxes.  A timeline of a significant franchise is consistent, per the First pillar, with a science fiction encyclopedia.  Plus, "cruft" is never considered an academic argument.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 15:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article is complete unencyclopedic cruft. Wikipedia is not a place for synthesizing plot summaries of film series. All of the pertinent plot information is already in the articles about the film series themselves. The article fails WP:N, WP:V, WP:NOT, and to a fair degree WP:WAF. To Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles: Wikipedia is not a "science fiction encyclopedia". It is a general interest encyclopedia about notable topics built on reliable third-party sources. I think you are confusing the mission of Wikipedia with something like Wookiepedia, where this kind of thing would be perfectly appropriate. It is not, however, appropriate for Wikipedia. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the article is completely encyclopedic and "cruft" is a non argument. Wikipedia is the place for syntheiszing plot summaries of film series.  The article passes WP:N, WP:V, and WP:IS.  Per our First pillar, Wikipedia is a science fictional encyclopedia.  It is NOT just a general interest encyclopedia, as the First pillar clearly states it is "general encyclopedia, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs."  The mission of Wikipedia according to the overwhelming majority of its contriubutors its to contain articles of this nature which is appropriate for Wikipedia per our policies and traditions.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Le Grand on this one too. --Tj999 (talk) 22:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Could you explain how it is encyclopedic exactly? I realize that "encyclopedic" can be a subjective term, but I fail to see how this provides useful information to readers apart from what's already in the main articles about the films and the series. As for your other points about the "specialized encyclopedia" and "policies and traditions", allow me to cite specific policy and guideline points:
 * 1) WP:NOT 1.1: Although there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover, "This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must still abide by the appropriate content policies"
 * 2) WP:NOT 2.2: "Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information not previously published." Also 2.2.1: "please do not use Wikipedia for any of the following: Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions". As others in this discussion have pointed out, there are very few set dates in the films. The timeline is your own extrapolation (theory) based on things that take place in the films. This constitutes original research and proposing a theory/analysis explaining continuity. I'm not arguing that the films don't flow together. There are few to no continuity issues between them and they clearly follow from one to the next. However, this is already explained in articles that already exist (Alien (film series), for example) so this article is extraneous and not based on any third-party analyses that have been previously published.
 * 3) WP:NOT 2.9: "Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Further, 2.9.2: "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development and historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. This applies to both stand-alone works and series. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work." The article contains no real-world context or sourced analysis with detail about the series' development & historical significance. As already stated, such context and analysis already exists in articles about the film series. A separate timeline article is ancilliary and unnecessary.
 * When I say that the article is cruft, I am not using the word solely as justification for deletion. I mean that it is not encyclopedic because it is important only to fans of the series and its exclusion would not significantly harm the factual coverage of the series as a whole. Calling it cruft is not "a non-argument", it is a descriptive term indicating the importance of the article's subject matter, which is the basis of my argument. As I've said, the pertinent information (how each film is connected to the others in the series in terms of timing of events) is already present in the articles about the film series and the individual films. Wikipedia is not Wookiepedia; it does not need this minute level of detail any more than it needs an article on the UD4L Cheyenne. This is especially true considering that most of the article is your own extrapolations (since few dates are given in the films) and since the information is already present in existing articles about the films. Because the continuity between the films is not complex, it does not warrant a separate article on the subject. If it were an issue, it might merit discussion in an article like Star Wars canon (an article which has its own issues with regard to wikifying and lacking third-party sources, but nevertheless is a good parallel example). Such an article is not necessary for this series, however, because there is no "official" canon: the stories of the films do not directly tie in to the stories in any of the other media. Since there is little need to explain the timeline of events (because, again, the continuity is already explained in the individual articles), the timeline article is unnecessary. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said each film has a structured time. The two Predator films and AvP are obvious, but as for the others it takes some research to verify the dates. It would be great if we could actualy contact someone, as a source, who has worked on these films (a director or writer of some sort). I will try to look into it, though it would be tricky. --Tj999 (talk) 00:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Five pillars, it is encyclopedic per our First pillar of one of our most core policies, i.e. it concerns an incredibly notable franchise and presents verifiable information in clear, organized, and discriminate manner. It is therefore consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on science fiction or Aliens or Predator or all three.  There are over 1,000 published specialized science fiction encyclopedias; thus there is no reason for a paperless encyclopedia not to share elements with those.  Thus, I am citing a specific POLICY, in first the FIRST PILLAR of that policy when I note that it is an element of a specialized encyclopedia.  As for any other possible personal interpretations of other policies that may question the reason for inclusion of this article, then apply Ignore all rules, as removing this article "prevents" editors "from improving or maintaining Wikipedia."  The article is a legitimate search term created by a good faith editor and defended by at least one other good faith editor.  In even a worse case scenario we would redirect the article without deleting it.  Deletion, which removes editors' contribution history from the public eye, is an extreme last resort reserved for hoaxes, personal attacks, copyright violations, etc.  We do not delete articles when a redirect exist and since we have articles and Alien and Predator series, we have such redirects.  Saying sources do not exist or the articles' lack of sources does not mean they do not exist.  Considering how much coverage the film series has had in Fangoria, Starlog, et al, I have a hard time believing that given enough time and research the article could not be better sourced, but even so, sub-articles are permitted to rely on primary sources.  I can never take an argument that has a word like "cruft" seriously.  It adds nothing to any conversations, just as an vulgar or unacademic word does and distracts from whatever other merits the argument may or may not have.  The article is necessary for providing the chronology in clear and encyclopedic chronological context.  Alien and Predator are not part of Star Wars, so Wookipedia has no relevance to this article.  And even so we have plenty of overlap with other wikis, which is fine, vecause we are the most comprehensive overall wiki.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You are very keen on citing the first pillar as a policy that you believe explicitly allows this type of article, on the grounds that Wikipedia "incorporat[es] elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs", with the implication being that a timeline of fictional events is an aspect of a specialized encyclopedia on science fiction. But I read the first pillar quite differently, in that most of its text has a lot more to do with what Wikipedia is not than what it permits. Specifically, the First Pillar reiterates some of my above points: "All articles must follow our no original research policy, and strive for verifiable accuracy", "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." Also, with regard to IAR: ""Ignore all rules" does not mean that every action is justifiable. It is neither a trump card nor a carte blanche. A rule-ignorer must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged." The point that the editors in favor of deletion have made here is that the article in question does not improve or maintain Wikipedia, and deleting it does not prevent other editors from improving Wikipedia. As I've said multiple times, the information contained in the timeline is already summarized in several other articles. As it is not a subject which merits multiple paragraphs of critical commentary or analysis, it is not worth branching off from the main articles. Deleting the article will not remove any meaningful content, because that content already exists in the articles the timeline was branched off from. Nor is it necessary to turn the article into a redirect, because it is a branch article to begin with and only contains information which was already in the main articles. When I draw a comparison to Wookiepedia, I am not implying that Alien and Predator are related to Star Wars. I am using it as an example to illustrate the difference between Wikipedia, which has notability guidelines to limit the amount of trivial information it allows, to another wiki-based project which does not (and which happens to be in the same field - science fiction - as the article we are debating about). Do not be so curt as to say that the comparison "has no relevance to this article". I make the comparison merely to illustrate how Wikipedia is not a forum for amassing trivial information about fictional topics. Yes, the Alien and Predator films have generated commentary and analysis by many third-party sources which can be used to source articles about them. But are any of those third-party critical sources specifically concerned with discussing the timeline of events in the film series, which is what this article is about? Can we collect any solid, reliable sources indicating that the timeline of events in this series of films is any more significant than any other timeline of events in any other fictional series? By extension, should we have timeline articles for all other fictional series that have articles about them on Wikipedia? No. This is exactly why Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and why we have notability and style guidelines that specifically deal with fictional subject matter. The article is not "necessary for providing the chronology in clear and encyclopedic chronological context". The chronology of events is already presented clearly in the main articles about the film series and the plot summaries of the articles about the films. This is almost certainly not a subject which could be expanded with encyclopedic content and third-party critical sources, and IMHO should not have been branched off from the main articles in the first place. Yes, it "concerns a notable franchise", but that is not a grounds for inclusion in and of itself. If it were, we could rationalize having separate articles on every minor character, weapon, prop...every topic related to the series in any way. The article is purely trivial information about a fictional universe with little or no encyclopedic value in and of itself. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We are here to write a paperless encyclopedia that anyone can edit, that is the sum total of human knowledge, that combines general and specialized encyclopedias as well as almanacs. There is no solid basis not to have this article; there is no benefit to our goals by deleting it.  We do, however, have potential gain by keeping it.  The topic is hardly "trivial".  It concerns the context of a blockbuster and notable film series.  It presents the subject in a coherent and discrmininate manner.  All this time wasted trying to delete good faith articles could and should be spent finding sources and improving them.  Articles that are not hoaxes, not libel, not copy vios, etc. should not be deleted.  Can we collect reliable sources?  Yes.  Should the article be kept?  Yes.  Is this article representative in part of what Wikipedia is?  Yes.  A timeline presents material that may or may not be spread out in a bunch of articles in a far more clear and concise manner and therefore serves a valuable purpose.  I would be shocked if you cannot find any reviews of the films that do not discuss the chronology and timeline in some manner.  All of these are reasons for inclusion.  There is no reason for deletion that benefits anyone.  The article passes the Five pillars and Ignore all rules and I see nothing reasonably convincing otherwise.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per the above & as unencycloepdic fancruft. Or, put another way, per (Pumpkin)–1. Eusebeus (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So in other words, you're actually arguing that the article must be kept. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh Pumpkin, how smart you are! That is indeed what I am arguing. I wrote Delete but that is only because I misspelled keep. ;) Comment again please? Eusebeus (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I thought you meant keep after all.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The timeline is fact, not opinion, and it is a helpful refrence to those who don't have time to research the dates of the alien/predator movies.--Tj999 (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Timeline articles are a little like List articles--they sumarize data and put it in a useful arrangement for the readers of the encyclopedia. For complex series, as for complex topics, they really help sort things out. The data is verifiable from the series directly (or by starting with it and then counting, which is not OR). Personally, I think that any argument including the word "...cruft" should be discounted as meaningless, since cruft=IDONTLIKEIT. DGG (talk) 03:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and that is the reason why we need to keep this article. As for references I have now found valuable information regarding Alien and Aliens. In the movie, Aliens, Ripley recites information from a data log that states that Carter J. Burke told the Hadley's Hope administrator to go looking for the derelict/abandoned ship on 6-12-79, meaning June 12th 2179. --Tj999 (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I see no secondary sources to indicate notability. Notability is not inherited. Taemyr (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability is inherited. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You keep linking to that as some kind of evidence that "notability is inherited" even though the article WAS deleted with the summary of "Clear WP:COATRACK for person with no notability on his own. Notability is not inherited, and being mentioned in a presidential candidate's speech does not make one notable." Notability is NOT inherited. AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * More importantly the argument you link to simply states that media attention indicates notability. So you will indeed sometimes get inherited notability, ie. when the notability of the "parent" is significant enough that the "child" gets coverage in reliable independet sources.  But then multiple independet sources exists, and the question of inheritance is moot.  This is not the case here, since no reliable independet sources have been proposed. Taemyr (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sub-articles only need primary sources. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 06:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There is NO consensus that notability is not inherited. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 06:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - lack of secondary sources. Also, concur with nom regarding the misinterpretation of the films - aliens teaching mankind is well known conspiracy theory, often credited to Erich von Däniken, which is intended to explain the existence of pyramids in various ancient locations, the same idea is used in the 5th Element and Stargate for example. Finally, the arguments about notability being inherited are spurious. PhilKnight (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sub-articles like this one only need primary sources and notability is definitely inherited in this case. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 06:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve or merge into Alien vs. Predator (franchise). The films can be cited, videogames can be cited, comic books can be cited and reviews of all of those can be cited. --Pixelface (talk) 03:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, could you please provide some evidence for your assertion that notability of sub-articles is inherited from their parent articles, and that "sub-articles like this one only need primary sources"? Perhaps some GA or FA precedents to prove these arguments? Both points seem to me to directly contradict Notability, Verifiability, and No original research. Specifically, WP:N states that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." Note the insistence on secondary sources that are independent of the subject, which this article lacks. In fact, WP:N further states that this is an essential criteria for a topic to merit a stand-alone article. WP:V outright states that "If no reliable, third-party (in relation to the subject) sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Further: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." WP:NOR states that "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." This article is making a synthetic claim, in that it is synthesizing events from all the films in the series. The article relies entirely on primary sources (the films). Notability of articles is not inherited from other articles on the subject, and all articles must be built around secondary source material. For a topic to merit a stand-alone article, it must have been the subject of third-party critical commentary published in reliable secondary sources outside of Wikipedia. As I stated earlier, I highly doubt that the specific topic of the timeline of events in this film series has generated enough third-party published analysis to merit a stand-alone article. The series of events in the films' plots are already discussed in the articles Alien (film series), Predator (film series), Alien vs. Predator (franchise), and the articles about the films themselves. A fan-created synthesized "timeline" of these fictional events, relying solely on the films themselves as sources, does not merit a Wikipedia article of its own. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's kind of common sense. Saying that someone mentioned in a president's speech and nowhere else is a far, far stretch of such a statement.  However, something like the George W. Bush pretzel incident would not be notable if it wasn't for the fact that it was the holder of national political office that was involved; otherwise, it would be news.  The AvP films are notable; no one is going to argue that.  The timeline itself is readily given within the universe material.  This sub-article allows the editors of the AvP-related articles to keep the majority of this information out of their parent articles and explore it to the fullest extent possible rather than be restricted by being in the main article and suffering loss of content. Celarnor <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  11:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Every article on Wikipedia does not have to be GA or FA status. As has been established in discussion on Plot, many have argued that sub-articles or spinoff articles are not the same as a regular or mother article.  All encyclopedia articles synthesize, whether they do so from primary or secondary evidence.  Anything that uses more than one source, synthesizes from those sources.  That is what encyclopedias do.  Notability is inherited from article on the subjects.  I have a hard time doubting with all the publications and reviews out there that published sources do not touch upon the timeline in some manner.  The article does indeed merit a Wikipedia article of its own.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 15:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI: If you have noticed in the timeline I have marked Aliens as a reference to Alien and Aliens because there is no time told in the first Alien film. --Tj999 (talk) 01:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This article on fiction is based entirely on primary sources. It fails Notability (fiction), Notability, and What Wikipedia is not.  It also abandons an out-of-world tone after the first sentence. I have yet to see anything in the way of independent, reliable sources.  A few general inclusionist arguments are in play, so let me start with "summary style excuses this article from notability".  Summary style is intended to allow articles like World War II to split into indivdual articles, each of which is notable in its own right, and thus prevent the parent article from growing unreadably long.  It is not intended to allow editors to create dozens of articles of questionable notabilty only of interest to fans of a particular fictional work.  Another one is an argument of what makes something "encyclopedic".  Unfortunately, it is difficult to figure out what exactly "encyclopedic" means, as many publishers use the word "Encyclopedia" as a synonym for "articles in alphabetic order".  I'd rather stick to Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion than a vague idea of "encyclopedic".  Another is a misrepresentation the deletion policy, which states that notability and original research are perfectly legitimate reasons to delete articles.  These general arguments don't address this article's basic lack of notability and verifiability. --Phirazo 04:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A spinoff article only needs to be based on primary sources. The article passes Notability (fiction), Notability, and What Wikipedia is.  As for the tone, that can be fixed by editing.  The movies are reliable sources.  Notability is unquestionable here.  "All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings." - Denis Diderot explaining the goal of the Encyclopedia.  The article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion.  There are no legitimate reasons to delete this particular article which is notable and verifiable.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see verifiability being an issue. All you have to do is pick up one of the books or watch one of the movies.  It's notability that's an issue.  But you somehow seem to think that World War II is somehow better than Aliens versus Predator, which leads down a very, very, very, very dangerous path.  As long as something's notability can be shown, and it is verifiable, subject should be of no concern to other editors.  When something like that happens, we end up with conservapedia. <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  04:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "A spinoff article only needs to be based on primary sources." - Again, can you please cite what policy or guideline you are basing this assertion on? I have only ever seen policies/guidelines that state the exact opposite of this belief, never one which agrees with it. And Celarnor, common sense states that World War II is a much more notable topic for an all-encompassing encyclopedia than Alien vs. Predator, for a variety of reasons (not the least of which is actual impact upon history and the course of human events). I say this as a big fan of the Alien series but also someone who is, by education, a historian. But I digress. The issue is whether "spin-off" topics are more notable and article-worthy in one case vs. the other, to which I believe the answer is obvious. It is undoubtable that one would be able to find many, many reliable third-party published sources discussing numerous subtopics of World War II which one could use to reference articles about those topics. For example "Consequences of German Nazism", "Axis naval activity in Australian waters", or "Naval Battle of Guadalcanal". These are all subtopics of World War II in general, and would be too large to discuss fully in the main article. Since numerous secondary sources exist to support articles about each individual topic, each is seen to be notable and therefore merits a stand-alone article. There is even a Timeline of World War II, though as you can see it has its own issues with sourcing. This is simply not the case with the Alien timeline article. There are few to no secondary sources available to support an article about the timeline of events in the series, therefore it is not a notable enough topic (or sub-topic, in this case) to merit a stand-alone article. WP:N clearly states that notability is shown through the topic's coverage in reliable secondary sources. Notability is not derived from the primary sources alone, nor editors' insistence that a topic is notable. Remember, "show, don't tell". Simply because something exists, or is in some way related to another topic that has an article, does not make that topic worthy of an article itself. That is the entire reason that we have notability guidelines. And to reiterate, all articles should cite secondary sources. I have never seen a case in which primary sources alone were enough to support an article. That is the point of WP:V. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You, as a historian, will naturally be biased towards the inclusion of history-related articles. I, as a programmer, will naturally be biased toward computer science articles.  We aren't a specialized encyclopedia; the goal of Wikipedia isn't to bias by topic, instead to take anything whose notability can be shown and verified.  This prevents the bias of "Well, I don't like topic x, so I don't think we should have articles on it" and allows us to focus solely on issues of notability and verifiability. <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  06:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Very true. And as I've pointed out, Wikipedia bases notability and verifiability chiefly on secondary source coverage of the article's topic, which the article in question is lacking. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is not needed on sub or spinoff articles. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 13:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * LGRdC, your entire arguments on this topic seem to rest on a set of incorrect assumptions. To wit:
 * 1) That "subarticles" or "spinoff articles" are some kind of special category of articles that have their own separate criteria for notability and verification. This is completely untrue. There is no special classification for "subarticles". There are no distinctions between "regular articles" and "subarticles." There are only articles, and the relevant policies (WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NOT) apply to all of them regardless of their subject matter. If there is enough information and supporting secondary source material to warrant splitting a specific topic from an article off into its own stand-alone article, only then then it is justifiable to do so.
 * 2) That these "subarticles" are exempt from Wikipedia's rules that articles must reference reliable secondary sources, and may be based only on primary sources. Again, this completely contradicts all of the core policies and guidelines such as WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NOT, and WP:N, which state the exact opposite.
 * 3) That because Wikipedia incorporates elements of specialized encyclopedias, and that because there are encyclopedias devoted to science fiction, that Wikipedia can therefore not exclude articles about trivial science-fiction related topics. Again, this is an incorrect assumption. A good science fiction encyclopedia, being first and foremost an encyclopedia, will consist mainly of real-world analysis of sci-fi topics (ie. notable franchises, books, and films) and base its analyses on primary and secondary sources. Otherwise it is not an encyclopedia, but a manual, guide, or novel (ie. the Aliens: Colonial Marines Technical Manual). Again, all article topics on Wikipedia are subject to the criteria of verifiability, original research, and notability, regardless of what field of interest they relate to.
 * 4) That notability of an article's subject is somehow "inherited" from other articles about the general subject. In other words, since the Alien and Predator movies are notable, editors have free reign to create whatever "subarticles" they wish that relate to the series in any way, and the notability of those topics is somehow "inherited" from the "parent articles" and is therefore not debatable. In all the annals of Wikipedia I have never seen anything to support this idea, and it completely contradicts the core policies and inclusion criteria such as notability, verifiability, and original research.
 * I'm sorry, and I wish you all the best in editing, but you are wrong in stating that secondary sources to establish notability and verification are "not needed on sub or spinoff articles." This is the last I will say on the subject for some time. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you IllaZilla and I wish you happy editing too. This article does only need primary sources becuase the movies is what this timeline is of. Secondary sources are welcomed but not needed. --Tj999 (talk) 22:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * IllaZilla's comments about science fiction encyclopedias seem mistaken. For example, I have here the The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (2nd edition) by Clute and Nicholls.  This cites mostly from primary sources and freely synthesizes in its thematic article such as the one about Aliens (in a general sense).  For verifiability, primary sources are usually the best ones and that seems to be the issue here - the accuracy of the timeline.  Colonel Warden (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2008 (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.