Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dates in Star Wars (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   SPEEDY CLOSE, no prejudice to reopening, due to the differences between the articles. I've REDIRECTED Timeline of Star Wars Books to List of Star Wars books in the meantime, but that's not part of this closure. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Dates in Star Wars
AfDs for this article:    
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

3 un-sourced, in-universe, non-noteable articles. There has been no "concensous" or "delete" decision in all the previous AFDs. While Star Wars and Harry Potter might be noteable, the timeline/chronology is not. This belongs on a fan site, not an encyclopedia. The articles fall foul of WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:NOT, WP:SYNTH, WP:SIZE and WP:FICT. Dalejenkins | 23:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  --  I 'mperator 23:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Dates in Star Wars as regurgitation of in-universe plot summary Chronology of the Harry Potter series. Merge or redirect Timeline of Star Wars Books to List of Star Wars books (looks like the latter has make-believe dates in it, but I didn't look very closely to see an exact matching) -- transition into sortable table could allow for useful (yeah, I know: WP:USEFUL) way of presenting both real-world publishing date, make-believe event dates, sales figures, authors, etc. etc. --EEMIV (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, making things useful is generally a good thing. Utility just doesn't override the limits of Wikipedia's remit. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Three different articles, all with different but similar problems. I'm not sure bundling this AFD is a good idea. That said...
 * Chronology of the Harry Potter series is a huge pile of duplicative, excessive plot summary composed into an originally synthesized timeline. I'm reminded of the now-deleted Buffyverse and Metal Gear timelines, both meticulously researched but wholly based on primary sources. This one also has a bunch of OR compare-and-contrast between the movies and film and a list of OR contradictions, to boot. Meh. Cutting up a plot summary into many tiny pieces and arranging it in in-universe chronological order is not good encyclopedia writing, and this timeline should be deleted.
 * Dates in Star Wars is like the HP chronology, but worse. It's pretty much copied whole cloth out of Star Wars: The Essential Chronology (a licensed guide), with fan updates and annotations. Same problems, but with a massive cleanup job of figuring out where the heck all of these factoids came from on top of it. This is a mess, and it can safely be deleted as Wookieepedia has a better timeline anyway.
 * Timeline of Star Wars Books is a different but easy to dispose of. List of Star Wars books is essentially the same thing with more (but still insufficient) emphasis on real-world details. List of Star Wars books is even arranged the same way. Redirect this to List of Star Wars books. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Split Afd per A Man in Black. That said, I am in favour of deleting all of them as in-universe and being shining examples of WP:PLOT, as for the Timeline of the Books, since it does include real world information, I would have no objections to it being redirected. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Split Afd as above; these are too disparate to be bundled. JJL (talk) 23:59, 13 April 2009 (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.