Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Back to the Future timeline (2nd nomination)


 * 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 Keep Nakon  05:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Back to the Future timeline
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - fails WP:NOT as being nothing but a restatement of the plots of the various films in the franchise. No independent reliable sourcing. Similar to the various deleted timeline/storyline plotfest articles, including but not limited to Kevin and Kell, Ultima Universe, Neon Genesis Evangelion, Eureka Seven, Hayate the Combat Butler, Love Hina and many, many others. Otto4711 (talk) 14:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Is not just a restatement of plot but shows how the time travel mechanisms work, clearing up a possibly confusing situation. Does indeed have reliable independent sourcing.  And just because other articles have been deleted by the Fun Destroyers doesn't mean others should.  This one should definitely stay. Thanos6 (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * First, calling other Wikipedians "Fun Destroyers" is not civil. Second, which sources are you suggesting are independent? The films, the novels based on the films or the other linked Wikipedia articles? Otto4711 (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The Starlog, for one. The various historical facts.  The BTTF.com website. Thanos6 (talk) 05:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The Starlog interview is being used to source exactly one sentence. The historical existence of caffeine-free Pepsi and the like doesn't really cut it as a source, and the links are to Wikipedia articles, which under no circumstances are usable as sources for other Wikipedia articles. The BTTF.com website is not independent. So again, where are the independent reliable sources? Otto4711 (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How much a source sources is irrelevant. Historical facts do indeed "cut it."  And BTTF.com is indeed independent; the official site is BTTFmovie.com Thanos6 (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * KEEP = Informative —Preceding unsigned comment added by Londo06 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Thanos6 --Zpb52 (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I not only think that this article should be kept, I just drove my DeLorean at 88 miles per hour and voted to keep in the previous AfD, which set a rather clear consensus for retention. And deleting articles that passed a previous AfD is civil? Alansohn (talk) 06:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change, and putting an article up for discussion after over a year since the last AFD, which was kept on the "strength" of such opinions as "It would be criminal to delete this cool, interesting article" and "the article is very interesting" does not implicate WP:CIVIL. WP:INTERESTING is not a terribly compelling argument, and neither is "it's had an AFD already." Would you have any interest at all in addressing the substance of the nomination? Otto4711 (talk) 08:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Other arguments in the previous AfD included: "well executed and shows the collaboration of many wikipedians"; "It would make a great research aid for anyone studying complex plots devices"; "N:V is not a legitimate complaint either, as the entry can be verified against the movies." Let's not cherry-pick quotes to imply a case. The Zig (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Did any of you read the previous AfD? Did anyone do the math on the consensus? I counted some 90% keep on the previous AfD, and while consensus can change, the nominator has provided no evidence whatsoever that there is any change in the community's consensus on the notability of this article. While you can quibble with the wording of a vote or two (and I would firmly disagree), you'd have to find excuses to wipe out over 30 keep votes to have made the previous AfD even close to anything but keep. Refighting battles just because you don't like the previous result -- yes, even one whole year after an overwhelming consensus for keep -- is inherently uncivil. Alansohn (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, revisting an article a year later is not uncivil, inherently or otherwise. Flinging around baseless and unfounded accusations of incivilty because you don't like the idea of the discussion? Now that's uncivil. Address the nomination, don't falsely attack the nominator. And I am still waiting for a single rebuttal of the actual substance of the nomination, which is that as a re-telling of the events of the three films it is a violation of the policy WP:NOT. For all of this back-and-forth and all of the bad faith accusations being directed at the nominator, not one of you has refuted the nomination and in fact the comment below acknowledges that it's a plot summary. And as for the bad-faith "cherry-picking" quotes accusation, do I really need to run down the entire last round of keep comments and point out how, when they aren't based on flawed arguments like how interesting people find the article or how useful it might be or how many people worked on it, and such utter non-arguments as "it's a work of art," they're by and large acknowledging that this nomination is correct that the article is nothing more than a plot summary? Look at how many people in the last AFD flat-out call it a "plot summary" or a "plot description" or an "explanation of the plot." There is simply no way around the simple fact that this article is a plot summary and it is bedrock Wikipedia policy that Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should cover their real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. This applies both to stand-alone works, and also to series.  Otto4711 (talk) 05:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's not get silly. It's not a "bad-faith accusation" to say that you cherry-picked quotes to support your case, just as is not bad faith to say I cherry-picked my quotes in response. My point was that this is weak, unproductive and most importantly misleading, as neither of us accurately reflect the previous AfD. Theres a link to the AfD just above. People can read it and make their own judgement on its validity, no? The Zig (talk) 06:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep This article contains info transcending 3 highly notable films (& thus could not be covered in/merged to any one of the other articles), yet it covers info relevant to them all. It is entirely sourced within the films (it is verifiable, anyone can check), sources are only required to be independent when establishing notability. (It would be ridiculous to exclude primary sources when actually describing something!) It is a fairly standard argument that plot details are 'too trivial' for an encyclopedia - I'd usually agree - but in this case, IMO it's warranted by the massive popularity of the films (as again evidenced in the snowballing of the last AfD) along with their complexity (as evidenced in the article, the films and the last AfD). All encyclopedias carry more detail on things that are popular and interest people. Perhaps it's not fair, but it's sensible. Why delete stuff that makes Wikipedia worthwhile just to accord to generalised guidelines that themselves state they should be broken if common sense dictates? Hence keep. The Zig (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT is not a "guideline." It is a policy. Wikipedia policies are not subject to the common sense occasional exceptions that guidelines are. Nor is "the thing whose plot is being summarized is really popular" a valid rebuttal of the policy violation. Otto4711 (talk) 05:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine by me. It's a policy that generally works, in most cases, but (I think) it's wrong here. I don't think policies should be ignored wily-nily, but they can't be written to spell out every reasonable exception. In this case (and in the last AfD) consensus seems broadly against deletion. Policies are relevant, but not holy writ. They too are subject to consensus. Therefore per common sense and wp:Ignore all rules, I think consensus (i.e. the reasoned opinion of WP's editors) is a better judge of what should be here than blind application of a policy. That's just my view. Now let's not get heated over this! The Zig (talk) 06:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * KEEP, saw this again. There is nothing new to suggest it warrants deletion. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 15:34, 22 January 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.