Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Events of the DC Universe lost year


 * 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. If anyone wants the content to transwiki somewhere, give me a shout. Black Kite 13:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Events of the DC Universe lost year

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

This page is basically an excuse for excess plot summary. The article is devoted solely to the purpose of of explaining backstory setup to the DC Comics storyline One Year Later. Most of the fictional events chronicled here occured in 52 (comics). Several events weren't even depicted on-panel and were only referred to in dialogue. Anything noteworthy in an out-of-universe context should be covered in those two articles, or others as necessary. This page needs to be deleted because its purposed on an sole focus on primary sources, synthesis, and original research without any real-world context. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep sounds ridiculous at first, but actually necessary in order to explain the fiction. I assumed it was dealing with fanfict, but I see it is based on the published works.     DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How is it necessary to explain the fiction? Can't you just read the comics? WesleyDodds (talk) 00:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * but that's what we have an encyclopedia for, to give some information about all the millions of things one person will never actually read or see or study.  DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I strenuously disagree with this. Should we have a separate article that explains the backstory to every movie or book?  Or only those movies or books that are especially confusing?  Where is the line between OR (what it seems happened before the book started) and actual explanation derived from the fiction itself?  If the original article can't give succinct and sufficient context, it should be rewritten to do so, and not spun off into another article, or else we will swiftly find ourselves with an article giving the backstory and context for every single work of fiction that has a devoted following, 99% of which will be made up of OR bordering on fanfic.  If someone wants an exhaustive essay giving tons of context for something that is only of interest if you actually want to read the comic, they should go to a fan site or some other related blog.  Dmz5  *Edits**Talk* 21:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I know this isn't a reason to delete or keep, but I think that nobody will find any value in this article except people who already read the comic, are confused, and need to find a place where all the background is laid out for them. It seems to me that wikipedia is not a vehicle for that kind of thing.  This isn't a concordance or a Norton's Edition.  Dmz5  *Edits**Talk* 21:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - simply a rehash of plot summary. I am frankly baffled by DGG's comment - most of those changes were trivial *within* the DC universe and forgotten or overwritten within months. How it's needed to "explain the fiction" is beyond me - isn't that what we rely on secondary sources for? --Cameron Scott (talk) 05:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as mostly a plot summary. J I P  | Talk 06:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 09:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as plot summary/trivia. Not the sort of content we should be encouraging in a serious encyclopedia. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * merge to 52 (comics). I wholly agree this a a clearly derived on original research and fleeting plotlines.  The lost year seems be encapsulated in 52, which provides much of the framework for backstory.  A soft-merge of material seems the best fit. -Sharp962 (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC).


 * Comments - Looking at the article and what's been posted here a few things strike me:
 * As far as I can tell, everything on the page is sourcable to the comics books DC published. Nothing here is coming from a "fans think"/OR POV. It seems counter productive to suggest that the existence of this article would pave the way for more speculative articles on similar topics.
 * IIUC, encyclopedic articles, while they aren't supposed to be research papers or book length deconstruction/criticisms, are supposed to proved a full and clear coverage of their topic. That may mean that, in the case of articles related to comics, there will be information that on first blush may only "be of interest to those that read the comics". Yes, some of that will be clutter - blow-by-blow summaries or a line or three for each of a character's appearances - but not all of it.
 * Out merging of information to 52 (comics) may cause more problems than it solves. Yes, the lion's share of the material here looks to have been drawn from the series, but not all of it. And there is a question about what here is a refrain from other articles. In doing an out merge it would be a good idea to check not only 52 (comics) but One Year Later the articles on the various characters, teams, and places to see what exactly is already covered.
 * And looking at #3, this does really come off as a correlation or tabulation list. In that respect, I tend to agree with Dmz5 - Wikipedia really isn't the venue for this. While out merging may be a good thing, it would be worthwhile to see if this can be transwikied to the DC Database Project, if something similar doesn't already exists there. In either of those cases, adding a link to the ELs of 52 and OYL would also be a good thing. - J Greb (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge or transwiki somewhere. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 31 August 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.