Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dates in Star Wars


 * 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.  Sandstein  16:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Dates in Star Wars

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

Delete - An un-sourced, in-universe, non-noteable article. While Star Wars might be noteable, its timeline/chronology is not. This belongs on a fan site, not an encyclopedia. The article falls foul of WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:NOT, WP:SYNTH, WP:SIZE and WP:FICT. See Articles for deletion/Chronology of the Harry Potter stories (2nd nomination) for a recent discussion of a similar nature. Dalejenkins | 20:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep without prejudice to re-submit. There probably should be some general discussion about "fictional timeline articles" if this keeps up...--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * →KEEP - While I consider myself likely more of a deletionist, and I hate fancruft, I think that this article serves a significant purpose. I read through it and it was both interesting and helpful in understanding the so-called Star Wars universe. As much as I hate to say it, at the very least I think this is a good time to invoke Ignoring a couple "rules" (guidelines and policies) in favor of keeping a useful article. There's far worse on Wikipedia, even though I know that's not a real Keep argument, it's meant as perspective.   Vengeance is mine,  saith   the Prime  21:22, 14 Aug 2008 (UTC) 


 * Keep The fan-created Star Wars Timeline (that might be a better name for the article) is a real thing worthy of a WP article. Redddogg (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * None of the above comments are valid. "It's useful" doesn't mean that it is noteable per WP:NOTE. Show me reliable secondary sources; there are none.I think WP:ILIKEIT is being applied. Dalejenkins | 22:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - seems one author made up a time line and put it in a book. There is nothing to support the validity of the information or even show it is accepted by the Star Wars community.  Gtstricky Talk or C 22:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * →Firstly, to Dalejenkins: While it is admirable that you are drawing parallels between this article and another (and in this case, I think a potentially valid one), that article was most recently KEPT and the current discussions, upon a cursory look, is leaning toward at worst No Consensus and possibly Keep. This sort of reinforces the KEEPability of the Star Wars page, using your own analogy. Perhaps there is an aspect of I like this article, but that is also not a reason to delete. I Like and I Don't Like... neither bears much weight, so countering with 'you're just saying you like it so you're invalid' is wholly insufficient as well.
 * →Secondly, to Gtstricky, to say "There is nothing to support the validity of the information or even show it is accepted by the Star Wars community" is wholly inaccurate. There is the book listed under references (now sources, as a more appropriate heading considering non-inlines and multiple sources). Moreover, there's additional sources available for verification, and while they are not by any means clear-cut or authoritative, combined they show continuity. The official book, though, is official. That's enough to show that it is accepted by Star Wars. Is it concrete? Probably not. Could it be changed through retconing later on? Sure. But it is solidly-based and documented.
 * →As for the original nomination, "An un-sourced, in-universe, non-noteable article" ... It is in fact, Sourced (though not INLINE, but sourced nonetheless), reality-based (through phrases indicating that information is in-universe and not real, such as "In the official continuity’s Star Wars universe" and "Fans of the Star Wars fictional universe keep track..."), and at least vaguely notable. Is that the only problem now, notability? That, of course, is in the eye of the beholder.
 * →→Bottom line is that while the "Keep" camp is being challenged with "you're using ILIKEIT", the "Delete" camp is likewise relying too heavily on IDONTLIKEIT. As I said before, because of its nature and its scope, I believe that even if it is not "notable enough", it should be retained in a RARE instance of IAR. VERY RARE.
 * My thoughts on the matter.   Vengeance is mine,  saith   the Prime  23:13, 14 Aug 2008 (UTC) 


 * Weak Keep - Keep if it could somehow get a few more sources.--English836 (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure all of us agree in principle with this conditional keep. But the condition is not met; I couldn't find any truly third-party secondary sources that would establish so much as the existence of the topic as a real-world fact. user:Everyme 13:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete As much as I love this sort of cruft, I gotta go with the nominator. A wonderful as it is, the Encyclopedia is not the place for it. It's inuniverse without any real-world significance. The sources look good-- but that just means this is authoritative cruft that should be on a fan site. Nothing shows how the timeline has any meaning in the real world.  Dloh  cierekim  00:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note well-- Vengeance asked my opinion on my talk page. I don't see this as canvassing as I don't think he could predict my response, and I've come out against his position.   Dloh  cierekim  00:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep- There's plenty of potential for real world notability, and its hardly OR. Just make sure its written from a real world perspective. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well its pretty much fancruft really. Personally I don't consider it encyclopedic but for all the Star Wars geeks out there (of which there are many) it is probably a useful reference point for a chronology of a fictional world. Not the sort of content I want to see but if some people find it useful I can't really comment either way to keep or delete.  ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 10:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, or merge the tables into Star Wars. Like every other fictional timeline article, this page tries to use (fictional) time stamps as an excuse to circumvent WP:NOT and WP:WAF in a huge way and can never abide to them even if they tried. They thus lack la raison d'être as separate articles. (No need to point me to WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFF; PLOT and WAF already support my position well enough.) – sgeureka t•c 14:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

"Sources:
 * Strong Delete, no notability, complete fancruft, no sources, and completely non encyclopedic content. Knowitall (talk) 07:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Star Wars: The Essential Chronology
 * Star Wars Time Tales: A Fan Supported Star Wars Timeline
 * Ultimate Timeline at TheForce.net
 * The Star Wars Expanded Universe Timeline
 * The Star Wars Expanded Universe Timeline


 * Yeah, "no sources" at all.   Vengeance is mine,  saith   the Prime  16:19, 16 Aug 2008 (UTC) 
 * There's really no cause for sarcasm: None of those sources are reliable, third-party sources. On their own, these cannot support an encyclopedic article. user:Everyme 01:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

*Strong keep. I've found it serves its sole purpose to occupy and entertain fanboys quite well. I regard it as sort of a fan sandbox. Give 'em that, or they will "write" "articles" about each and every last one of the ~5.000+ minor SW characters. user:Everyme 13:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Category:Star Wars characters
 * Yeah, "~5.000+ minor SW characters" have pages.   Vengeance is mine,  saith   the Prime  <small style="font:9px Arial Narrow">16:22, 16 Aug 2008 (UTC) </FONT>
 * Not yet, but I'm sure with sensible editorial judgement like yours, they will occasionally be pushed on us. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">user:Everyme 01:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC) Nevermind that, VengeancePrime has been indefblocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">user:Everyme 01:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Change to genuine keep due to the sources found by DHowell. It seems the SW timeline has been discussed in major news outlets in its own right, and whatever the current state of the article, it can now be improved to satisfy our core content policies. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">user:Everyme 14:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

arbitrary break 1

 * BOTTOM LINE...
 * Pillar One: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs."
 * Is this of sufficient interest/notability/importance for a "general encyclopedia", a "specialized encyclopedia", or an "almanac"? No, Yes, and No.
 * "follow our no original research policy, and strive for verifiable accuracy"
 * Are there sources of information? Yes. Can it be verified? Yes. Is it accurate? Yes, per the verified sources.
 * Pillar Two: "Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view."
 * Is the article written in a neutral fashion, not giving undue weight or preference to a particular point of view? Yes, it is. In fact, it is the perfect type of article for neutrality because it is truly fact-based.
 * Pillar Three: "Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit."
 * Is the article copy/paste? No. Is it collaboratively-written? Yes.
 * Pillar Four: "Wikipedia has a code of conduct: Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them."
 * 'Nuf said.
 * Pillar Five: "Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here."
 * Does this timeline violate a pillar? No. Beyond that, are rules firm? No. Is there any prohibition against doing something that is best rather than codified? Absolutely not.
 * "Although it should be aimed for, perfection is not required."
 * Is the article perfect? No. Does it need more or better references? Probably. Is perfection necessary to prevent deletion? Totally not!
 * The Bottom Line: This timeline meets all the PILLARS. After all, isn't that the thing for which we all strive. Back to the basics here; there is no good reason to delete this article.While DELETE-ers will say that "ILIKEIT is not a valid reason to keep", they also say "Quality of references is more important than quantity", which is just a smokescreen for "IDONTLIKEIT". (Evaluation of references in this way, especially without stating WHY a reference is "not good enough", makes for a personal, bias-ridden, evaluative judgement... i.e. IDONTLIKEyoursource.) Finally, allow me to point out that this timeline is less OR (less date-mathematics), less unsourced, and equally-well organized (or even better-organized/written) as 2007, 1977 (unreferenced), 1775, and 1611, all of which are also timelines; should we delete all those as well as they are OR and unreferenced?
 * It's simple, really. FIVE PILLARS. Keep. Carry on. and Keep smiling. <small style="font:12px Matura MT Script Capitals">  Vengeance is mine,  saith   the Prime  <small style="font:9px Arial Narrow">16:49, 16 Aug 2008 (UTC) </FONT>


 * That sounds like desperation to me. If we applied to those rules, nothing would get deleted. 86.138.16.237 (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And what is the problem whith that? Deleting as much as possible is not a goal. The only articles that really need to be deleted per the Pillars are the ones that do not have any business being in an encyclopedia, violations of copyright, hoaxes, and articles that can not be verified. 96T (talk) 18:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: User:VengeancePrime has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">user:Everyme 01:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Since "Ignore all Rules" is a pillar, we would have no rules, just chaos and random, indiscriminate "stuff" whether encyclopedic or not. That's why we have notability guidelines, to remind us that this is an encyclopedia. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  15:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Keep, well done, sourced, and a very good point of reference to understand all the other Star Wars articles. If this isn't kept, the most relevant stuff (the years in which the various films take place, the explanation of the year system) should be merged into Star Wars galaxy. 96T (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC) Vote changed to keep per DHowell's sources below. 96T (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Doesn't it occur to anyone else how strange, unbecoming and also symptomatic it is that we have an article about the fictional, in-universe chronology, but no page about the real-world publication chronology of the franchise? There'd be plenty of third-party secondary sources to create a great and interesting article about the real-world chronology, yet people are hellbent to keep this poorly (and frankly: insufficiently!) sourced pile of OR. And as I said above: The OR in this article does not merely extend to some or even most material in the article — it includes the very topic, which is the fabrication of some fan editors. You just have to let yourself be asked that question: What kind of fans are you that you favour such substandard coverage of your favourite subject? Go write a real article about a real-world aspect of Star Wars. That would be really good. (Another big suprise (not) is that we have no article about Star Wars fandom, although there are plenty interesting sources, e.g., , , , , . Also note that this comment is not a WP:WAX argument. I'm just wondering, and I'd like you to pause for just a moment and wonder along with me so that I may feel a bit less lonely wondering.) <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">user:Everyme 13:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not then write those articles, instead of working so hard to remove the work of others? You can lead volunteers far better by creating better examples for them to follow, than by threatening to destroy their work if they don't improve it to your satisfaction. DHowell (talk) 05:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, I don't "threaten" anything. And I don't argue to delete this article because it isn't being improved to satisfy our core content policies, but because I have come to the firm conclusion that it cannot possibly be. But you're right that leading through example is usually the preferred method. I've tried things like e.g. looking for sources and putting them on articles' talk pages for interested editors' convenience — to little avail. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">user:Everyme 14:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per significant coverage in reliable sources such as the Los Angeles Times, the Lexington Herald-Reader, Chronicle Telegram, and Star Wars: The New Essential Guide to Characters. There are enough reliable, independent sources to improve this article without necessitating original research, and so it should not be deleted. DHowell (talk) 05:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Good work finding those sources (except for the tie-in "Essential Guide" which I regard as a 1.5 source at best). Changed my !vote accordingly. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">user:Everyme 14:32, 19 August 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.