Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Back to the Future timeline (3rd 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 Merge to Back to the Future trilogy. Sufficient time has been given for this article to have found third-party sources to demonstrate the notability of the subject material. --Haemo (talk) 05:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

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

This list/article has been nominated for deletion twice, and kept. That said, this article clearly has problems. For example, I'm guessing that the number of fact tags runs to about 200. The sourced ones aren't as good either, containing a hodgepodge of film synthesis and historical synthesis. While time travel in the film series is important, there is little internal and no external sourcing at all (and if the theme is important, there should be books to corroborate the timeline). For all these reasons, the article should be deleted, but with no prejudice towards a new, cited version Will (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * i say the article should be kept, just becuase it may be a mess, but i find it useful to understanding the movies. LukeTheSpook (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This was nominated for deletion only two months ago. Wikipedia does not have a deadline.Catchpole (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fifteen months ago. It hasn't improved the objections since then. There's a time where you have to go beyond "no deadline" and think "okay, this has been in a terrible state for ages". Will (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, see Articles for deletion/Back to the Future timeline (2nd nomination) - January 2008. Catchpole (talk) 06:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Deletion is not necessary to properly reference the article. The "citation needed" tags are numerous, but most of the article references the film and novelizations as primary sources (not much else you can do with a fictional topic), and these can be referenced likewise. The time travel theory and a similar version of the diagram are referenced from a comprehensive Starlog article on the topic. --Canley (talk) 23:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete *I personally think that it's an article with little purpose and no guidelines. There are assumptions and presumptions all over. But I think the nominator is cutting him/herself down; to suggest deleting the article without prejudice for a new version means the nominator does not think the article should be deleted. Deletion is not a solution for poor writing. The article should only be AfDed if the nominator thinks the TOPIC is not worth keeping. That said, I think the topic is too much fan-interpretation for its own good, relys on stuff like creator commentary that some people may or may not feel is canonic, and the topic itself is fairly unencyclopedic. TheHYPO (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, pure synthesis. The existence of another website that covers this material means that the information will not be lost to humanity. Blast Ulna (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED. The article contains encyclopedic and verifiable information.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you explain your rationale? It reads to me that you're !voting keep because it's being repeatedly nominated, which, as you've shown, is a bad argument, and actually is a good reason why it should be renominated. Will (talk) 23:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The previous keep decision I believe came in January of 2008, i.e. just over a month ago. So, the example from the link that I see as problematic is "Delete I do not care that it survived three AFDs in the past week, I'm going to nominate it every day until it is deleted."  The article works a sub-article of a major franchise and is not original research, because it does not offer any kind of original thesis.  It presents verfiable information relevant to a noteworthy film series in a straightforward encyclopedic manner.  I see no gain for Wikipedia if the article is deleted; rather only editors potentially frustrated and a diminishment in our overall quality as a reference guide.  Plus, because the film series is all about time travel, a timeline actually seems particularly relevant in this instance.  This is exactly what Wikipedia is here for.  Regards, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, your article turns out fine. It's your citations, Marty!  Something has to be done about your citations!  OK, forgetting for a moment that it's been nominated before, Will's point is that a lot of this stuff is "citation-needed" conjecture that not only is unsourced, but can't be sourced.  We don't really know when Emmett Brown was born (article assumes he was 65 years old in 1985), and I've never been sure how they got that Marty McFly is "Martin Seamus McFly" (the mention of ancestor Seamus didn't seem to spark any reaction in Marty in BTTF3).  If anyone were to boldly take out the stuff that someone was just guessing at, there's not as much of a timeline.  It's the kind of original research that is kind of fun to read and fun for other editors to contribute to, sure, but if it's to remain in an encyclopedia, then the not-as-fun job of sticking to citations has to be followed as well.  Mandsford (talk) 00:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:PLOT. This is all in-universe plot summary with no independant real-world analysis (besides a smidge of speculation by some guy in the "Theory" section). Seriously, the films aren't that complicated, and it's not what Wikipedia is here for. PC78 (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:PLOT and WP:OR. This list is a combination of fictional elements and historical facts, but together they make an original synthesis. The article subject (the actual timeline of the movies) has not been demonstrated to be notable independently of the movies themselves, and the subject is already sufficiently dealt with in the context of the individual Plot sections in each movie article. EDIT And now that the article has been appropriately transwikied, the reasons to keep this article here are even less. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 01:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep While merging might be an option, total deletion shouldn't be. I'm guessing the citeneeded stuff is either speculation or from non-canon sources (maybe the cartoon), and can easily be removed. -- Ned Scott 02:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Changing to merge. Still not liking the idea of total deletion, since even a very trimmed back version could be useful content. -- Ned Scott 23:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep a notable series and this article serves a useful organizational purpose. DGG (talk) 07:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Mandsford's caption 5 items up from here says it best. The "information" in this article constitutes unciteable original research on a work of fiction, aka "in-universe" plot summary, which would have to be actually published to be citeable, and then it's protected intellectual property. An expanded novelization of the trilogy would have to include some detailed chart (or "scripted monologue" by Doc Brown, if you will) for that to be the case, and I'm not aware of a novelaization in print or out. It also just so happens that there's a BTTF wiki, 13 months old, that is an infinitely more appropriate place for this unpublished mumbo-jumbo. I have been half-expecting this sort of stuff to be gradually weeded out of WP as it matures, and as "fan" wikis propagate. One more observation: these sort of articles contribute to the perception of WP as more of a colossal magazine than "an encyclopedia about everything", but it isn't clear to me whether that's actually a good or bad thing. That's why my vote is weak delete. If 20th-century encyclopedia publishers thought this sort of content would help sell their "on paper" product, they would include it. In short:
 * Recommend this article be "ported" to the above wiki and a link to it appear in the main BTTF article. That's fair. Schweiwikist (talk) 08:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Very reluctant delete per nom (I loved the film and drew such timelines myself, but it is plotty ORed synthesis nonetheless). It seems the article already got transwikiied to http://bttf.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline, so if the BTTF wikipedia articles link there, wikipedia can have the cake (offer all kinds of information) and eat it to (no original research or other policy violations). – sgeureka t•c 13:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Mostly WP:OR. SWik78 (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, it looks like the article has lots of references and the films are valid sources. --Pixelface (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * References, schmeferences. Please read Back to the Future timeline. Notice that the only citation is to someone's speculation? "Do you know what this means? Do you know what this means?" It means that the whole damn thing is WP:OR and doesn't work at all! DELETE Mangoe (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * While you offer no persuasive reason for deletion, the "References, schmeferences" is somewhat funny (my dad gets all happy whenever someone tosses a "belts, schmelts" out for example as someone did after the heavyweight title fight on Saturday at HBO. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The first sentence in that section seems fine. That section alone is not a reason to delete the article. If needed, the article can be renamed to List of events in the Back to the Future trilogy and trimmed down. --Pixelface (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice tries, guys, but I did give a reason. The problem with the article is that to justify the analysis, we need a theory. And to have a theory, we need it from an authoritative reference. We haven't got that, and therefore the whole thing is a bunch of fannish working out based on fannish theories. Mangoe (talk) 00:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make sense (I don't mean that as an insult, I just don't follow). Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me try it step-by-step, then. Where did the timelines come from? People worked them out. That's already an "original research" problem, but keep going. What's the basis? Well, there's a theory, and there's the events in the movie. Well, probably the latter are facts, but the theory? Where id it come from? Well, people worked that out too. Is that WP:OR? Darn tootin'. Mangoe (talk) 01:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Every article is written by someone "originally" taking information from different sources and putting them together. A coherent timeline based on events of a major series presented matter of factually without making some kind of argument is encyclopedic.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The whole point of having the article in the first place is that the normal narrative rules do not apply. It's difficult to say at any given point in any of the first two movies exactly which versions of whom are in the "current" narrative. Indeed, I think I could make an argument from some of the premises of the first movie that there is always a single timeline which is being continuously rewritten. And that's the central point. It's not a significant synthesis to relate incidents in order when the ordinary arrow of time is agreed upon by all. In this movie, not only is it not agreed upon, the theory of of exactly how it is working isn't entirely clear even to the characters. If you can get Zemeckis and Gale to spell out the theory they used, then maybe it can be applied, though it's entirely possible that there's too much analysis needed to do that. Better still, if someone comes up with a chart or something like that which Z & G used to keep track of the characters, we can report that. The problem is that the article seems to be back-deducing the theory from the movies, and then analyzing the movies based upon that theory. That is a perfect example fo the kind of original research which we don't do. Mangoe (talk) 04:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The article lists events in the film trilogy. An argument that "there is always a single timeline which is being continuously rewritten." actually contradicts dialog (and diagrams) in the films. The fictional character Doctor Emmett Brown said whenever a time traveller alters events in the past, they bring an alternate timeline into existence. This article definitely contains some original research and synthesis, but it's not unsalvageable. --Pixelface (talk) 13:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But really though, what would you be salvaging that isn't already in the articles for each individual movie? -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 23:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per clear Wikipedia policy on renominations. &mdash; Val42 (talk) 03:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Two months is a long enough time to find even a single new source to demonstrate notability of the article subject. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 03:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - many of the citations are rather silly, but the primary source (the three movies) should be pretty close to adequate for an article that essentially places details from them in order to show how the time travel premise is worked out in the films, straightforwardly so with little or no interpretation needed. The theory involving the timelines is not OR, but taken directly from Doc Brown's chalkboard explanation, and stated in the article. Nor is it really from the Starlog articles by the late Disney Imagineer cited, since he had a slightly different take on it (the "two Martys theory") that I'm pretty sure was refuted by Zemeckis and/or Gale at some point. That source serves primarily to establish notability, not that a central aspect of such a successful series of movies should need to be vouched for. What this article needs, in my view, is to have some of the more trivial stuff trimmed, and for someone to take the time to source the rest to scenes from the films, supplemented with any other sources that can be found such as DVD featurettes and commentaries, books, magazine articles, etc. Wikipedia has no deadline, and two months since the last nom is probably not enough time to expect someone with the time, interest, and paper sources to undertake the work involved. (I, for example, have a few sources, but mostly buried in boxes. Shall the article be deleted just because I can't face searching through 100 boxes in three rooms at this time?) In the meanwhile, it is better to have the article, despite its faults, than to wipe it and (possibly) start over. --Karen | Talk | contribs 03:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to have to say this, but I think this paragraph exhibits exactly the misunderstanding of "original research" that we are supposed to be avoiding according to WP:NOR. Yes, the movies are primary sources; but this article, as it stands, can never be more than a fannish analysis of those sources. Mangoe (talk) 12:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED. The article is notable, encyclopedic, and well-sourced.  It is a notable and popular enough topic that, if deleted, it would only resurface again shortly after.  There's no WP:OR here; much of it is simple restatement of things given in an original source.  There is no thesis presented, thus there is no research pushed forward. Celarnor (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sheeeesh. Did you read the title of the page to which you linked? Mangoe (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article provides an otherwise unavailable detailed and clear reference to enable people to better understand the changes, differences and similarities to time lines. I don't know of any suitable alternate source, and if it were deleted, the appropriate link to an alternate source, if one exists, must be cited at the movies' article. GBC (talk) 22:58, 13 March 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.