Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Castlevania 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 delete. --Ezeu 00:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Castlevania timeline
Per precedent. Largely unverifiable and redundant as each of the games already has its own article and a umbrella series article to describe its story. Combination 18:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete part, merge the rest The summary table should be included in the main series article, but the rest of it is an overly detailed in-universe explanation that is far too redundant with most of the individual games' pages. Also, it's WP:NOT. Cliftor 18:35, 30 October 2006 (PST)
 * Redirect to that article. Danny Lilithborne 20:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The game descriptions could be better sourced, but the timeline itself is sourced and verifiable. TJ Spyke 20:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions.   -- Chacy 23:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe .RON   talk  01:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The precedent doesn't apply here. Half Life is two games.  Castlevania is more like two dozen.  it makes it much harder to cover this material in a series article. Ace of Sevens 04:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Useful overview of the series. Too large to merge into the main article. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I have no problem with this article. The Kinslayer 09:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * keep, a verifiable and useful overview. &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Whoa, whoa, whoa. This is a massive lump of plot summary written in in-universe style. It's redundant with the individual articles, and involves a ton of original research in deciding which facts are canon and which aren't. This isn't an encyclopedia article; it's a (bad) fanpage. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It isn't original reseach as to what isn't canon. When the company that produces the series says "this game is not canon", the it is hardly original research. It should be sourced, but that's not the same thing. Koweja 00:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * CommentIt's validity as an encyclopedia artice is just as valid as any Star Wars wiki. Every sentance in your comment is an opinion.  The only relevant point you make may exist with redundantcy in the sub pages that expand on sub-topics.  However, expaning on topics with words linked to other information is a function of most articles.McDanielMichael 15:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - Not quite sure what I was thinking when I voted to keep! This article is just a large regurgitation of plot.The Kinslayer 08:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NOT: "Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." Interrobamf 14:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete a bunch of unsourced fictional happenings in a fictionalized world; I also agree with Interrobamf. I always find these pseudochronologies puzzling, especially in wikilinking the years and dates of fake events, do readers of this article care what really happeneded in any of those periods or are their minds deep into the never, neverland of their fictional setting. Carlossuarez46 20:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment So are you saying delete because you don't think the article is appropriate or because you look down on people who care about a fictional timeline? Koweja 00:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This article has been extremly helpful. I have referenced it every day for about a month while I work on my D20 campaign that my players are currently playing.  Without this time line of events, it would have been more difficult to piece together from the other articles.  The Konami timeline verifies this, and further details from other sources help clarify these events. I spend more time here than in the other wiki page. McDanielMichael 22:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC) — McDanielMichael (talk • contribs)  has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
 * "This is useful to me" isn't a decent argument. "Usefulness" is not policy. Interrobamf 09:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * ''It's "usefulness" is referencing that this resource has valid data not referenced anywhere else in the wikipedia. The timeline is officialy verified.  The main Castlevania wiki that links to this shows what year the games came out, but not individual games duration in cronological order with sited start/end dates.  This story will expand, and this data is unique.  My vote for KEEP is valid.  Merging would also be acceptable, however I consider it merged due to the link from the other wiki page.McDanielMichael 15:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into Castlevania after cutting out a lot of informatioin that is available in the game specific articles. Koweja 00:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia is a source of information, this timeline is information. I thought Wikipedia was a place where anyone could go to learn about anything, not some "Just Us" club for intellectual elitist. If people use it, then it has value.FANTASTIC0PHIL 15:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read the following so that you can avoid making more mis-informed statements. WP:NOT, paying particular attention to Indiscriminate information, Game manual, Plot synopsis. The Kinslayer 15:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. The timeline contains useful information for those seeking knowledge.  The timeline does NOT contain "tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes".  I guess I'm just not seeing what other folks problem is.FANTASTIC0PHIL 16:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This part, Number 7 under 'Indiscriminate Information': Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.  The Kinslayer 13:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly, I think most people could assume that 1000 years of European history to be real-world context even if a fictional story is set in the middle of it. Since it's been sourced, well, that covers that.  And it is an aspect of a larger topic, Castlevania.  Again, thanks for the great info, I don't know what the problem is either.24.32.229.151 03:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as plot summary per WP:NOT. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 18:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete plot summary, WP:NOT. It's a huge barely organized plot summary, nothing close to a timeline. The chart is useful however, I suggest that gets added into the series article. --ScythedRunner 05:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought a timeline was a series of dates and then an a telling of what happened on those dates? I think adding it to the article would be fine, but do you add it to all the Castlevania game articles or is it just easier to create a link in all the articles to referance one page?24.32.229.151 20:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Redundant with the other articles mentioned and per Scythed. Wickethewok 19:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge sourced information pertaining to the chronological sequence of the games into the Castlevania series article. People need to be able to learn about the revision to the timeline in a place free of POV. Most of this article should be deleted. 68.162.176.250
 * keep I like this artical because I like knowing the cronoligie in a series of movies or games.Alex 1991 19:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete do not merge per WP:NOT. Whisp e ring 22:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge but exclude Legends.172.189.195.66 15:38, 3 November 2006 (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.