Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of River Song


 * 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.  Larry V (talk &#124; email) 23:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Chronology of River Song

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Pure Original research. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I scrolled down to the bottom, and I was surprised by the lack of source links. Asteroid1717 (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the sources could be assumed to be the episodes themselves, but I don't think that's enough in this case, especially since Moffat isn't done messing with our minds yet. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge to River Song. I'd honestly prefer it be a separate article, but I doubt that WP:N would support that.  There may be an "UNDUE" problem, but A) this is pretty important to the character and B) it could be collapsed I suppose.  Hobit (talk) 01:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Yep agree with the basic order, however pure research as there are episodes such as impos ast and DOM which yes likely to be River as a girl but come off it, it's original research until 100% confirmed, and the little girl could easily be someone else, this is Moffat we're dealing with. Oh and her meeting with the 'present' doctor takes place in 2011 as he takes them back to 1969. And the quotes a definatly OR who says that they are the key quotes in the episode. Good twins (talk) 08:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to River Song (Doctor Who) would seem to be a no brainer. This should be a sub section on her page. Mathewignash (talk) 09:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Keeping this article can't be justified unless it can be proven that it's not WP:OR, which it very clearly appears to be. There are no sources and none to be found—it's fan speculation, and probably correct at that, but still fan speculation. We can't merge content that constitutes this, and it certainly fails the WP:GNG categorically. If a source discusses this ordering of episodes, that information will be easy enough to place in the extant article River Song (Doctor Who). — chro • man • cer 22:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete these timelines are generally deleted for being mainly WP:JUSTPLOT, for lacking independent sources to WP:verify notability, and for being a WP:CONTENTFORK of the main fictional work's plot summary but with much more WP:UNDUE weight. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Original research. Plus, though we know (at the moment) when River is born and dies, the middle section is purely speculative. It's still vague as to which points in River's timeline correspond to the Doctor's. We really need to wait on reliable sourcing to come out on this. --Ebyabe (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: The chronology as a subject does not meet the general notability guideline and can only be a plot-only description of a fictional work. There are no third-party sources to presume that it should have a stand alone article. The chronology itself is merely a non-concise plot summary, an unneeded content fork of River Song (Doctor Who). The content is supported exclusively with primary sources, using original research by synthesis to create the chronology, which doesn't exist outside of this article. Jfgslo (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge It would fit very well into the main article on the character. None of the objections above show otherwise. The rule against plot summary applies to the complete wp coverage of a topic, not each individual part of it. Primary sources are sufficient for the events of a fiction, and are in fact the preferred source, rather than using a secondary source describing the plot, which is usually inaccurate. Entering obvious facts about the outside world is not OR. (Furthermore, by the GNG If the plot is discussed in a substantial way in some of the reviews about the episodes, then the plot itself is notable ; if the chronology of the character is discussed in a substantial way, it would be separately notable also though I still would not support this as a separate article.  I agree such references is not in the article, but I don't think it has been seriously looked for.) But my main point is that this should have been nominated for merge not deletion: The basic concept behind WP:BEFORE, though not all the details, is part of WP:Deletion policy. BTW, The article has been considerably improved since the above !votes were made. The early states of the article were ridiculously excessive, and this may have affected the !votes--though we're not supposed to delete on the basis of article quality, that's a little unrealistic--it does affect people's thinking (including mine, if it's bad enough)    DGG ( talk ) 18:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I disagree vehemently with this interpretation of guidelines. Primary sources cannot be used to cobble together a supposed chronology of a fictional character's history without secondary sources to back them up. That is textbook WP:SYNTHESIS. Neither does any portion of our guidelines state that primary sources are to be our preferred source for interpretation of plot. See WP:PRIMARY and the MOS for writing about fiction. I quote from the guideline: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." If this chronology—which is not made explicit in any extant source, primary or secondary—does not constitute interpretation, then I will eat my hat. "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements" of what is contained in it. Since this chronology is not found explicitly in the primary source, and is not documented in a primary source, it clearly constitutes original research. — chro • man • cer 23:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Essentially trivia. &mdash; RHaworth 12:28, 14 June 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.