Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional history of the Marvel Universe


 * 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. The keep side seem to rely more on assertion then actual secondarty sources and these have not been provided despite a good discussion, The delete site argue on apolicy basis that GNG requires secondary sourcing to demonstrate notability and that this is essentially a synthesis. I find the delete argumenst are moe in accordance with policy but will be willing to undelete instantly if proper secondary sources can be found. Spartaz Humbug! 19:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Fictional history of the Marvel Universe

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

Complete in-universe plot summary that requires original research for it's construction (because the fictional history of the universe is constantly contracted by different writers, for example, Hitler has died in multiple ways, the evolution of man has multiple causes etc etc) as the editors needs to decide the important of events themselves rather than rely on reliable third party sources to do this task for them - because they don't exist. We already have an article on the Marvel Universe which treats the subject (as it should) as the objective of the narrative rather than just being a lavish plot summary constructed from primary sources - so I wouldn't even merge any of the content. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The fictional history is listed in the sources mentioned at the bottom. This information is not presented in full anywhere else.  D r e a m Focus  15:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * A collection of primary sources - what third party reliable sources made the determination of importance or notable? --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The suggestion guidelines are defeated by the rule of common sense. Most people known more about Marvel comics history than real life history.  And the events are reviewed in places that review comic books.  The older ones will be hard to find perhaps.  The historical events reshaped the comic book world, and sometimes are the basis for movies.   D r e a m Focus  15:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Then they will be described in those terms by reliable third party sources - for example, the producers of Wolverine have discussed how which storyline they used in making the movie. That's an entirely different thing from just generating page after page of in-universe plot summary that relies entirely on primary sources and original research by editors (to determine what is important). --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.


 * Keep and improve. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * With what? How would you construct an article without original research? --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Summarising a topic of this sort is not original research. Most articles require editorial judgement to select and summarise the sources, especially when they are as abundant as they are in this case.  Balance may be required per WP:UNDUE but addressing that does not require deletion - just ordinary editing and consensus. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Something weird is going on with the log, making this entry and Articles for deletion/Freedom of Power Treaty kind of blur together and look like one afd (it's been fixed now). Also, DreamFocus, your statement that "Most people known more about Marvel comics history than real life history. " is ridiculous. Maybe most people you know fit that description, but it is ludicrous to apply it to the general public. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Massive in-universe plot summary that violates Wikipedia's original research policy. WesleyDodds (talk) 19:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Summarising a topic in this way is not original research. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is if you're trying to costruct an cohesive narrative from the beginning of time to the far future when that's not how it was published at all (both the cohesive part and the linear part). WesleyDodds (talk) 09:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep There are hundreds of good sources for this topic which evidently has great notability. (see http://books.google.co.uk/books?lr=&q="marvel+universe"&btnG=Search+Books) Colonel Warden (talk) 21:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There are hundreds of books about the production of those stories and many about the cultural significant of those stories (and I own many of them) - but those would be discussed within a production history article *not* an in-universe plot summary article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems to be a different topic. The sources to which I refer are concerned with the notable happenings within the fictional universe and are quite ample for our purposes.  If you wish to write an article about the making of the Marvel universe, deletion of this article is neither necessary nor helpful - the two would complement each other. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * this article has nothing to do with "the making of the Marvel universe". Simply, it's chart of what order the stories are "supposed" to be in from an in-universe perspective. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Colonel Warden, your link above led me to a great source for Major events of the Marvel Universe. Keep trying, I got my fingers crossed that you can find one for the fictional timeline. Abductive  (reasoning) 10:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Verifiable, from the primary sources, the preferred sources for this sort of subject. (There ought to be some secondary ones also). Summarizing a topic is not OR, but the sort of tertiary research that we necessarily use for every  Wikipedia  article--how else can an articl;e on any toipic be written.   Of course the article about plot of a fiction will be plot summary--it is only the total overall/w coverage of an fiction which falls under WP:NOT PLOT. This is the good way of handling the topic for these multi-part fictions.    DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * but there isn't a single common narrative - how without secondary sources do you decide what to include and what not to include without resorting to original research? Take the birth of man - I could write an article this length simply on that matter because the marvel universe has has multiple different accounts, King Arthur is the same, the death of hitler - the list is endless. Not a single person who's stated "keep" has tackled this issue. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, no. Read the Wikipedia guidelines on primary sources. They are never preferred and in fact should be used sparingly, if at all. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per above and WP:COMMONSENSE. Enormously notable company.  Even I know Marvel.  The battlegound at WP:FICT is doing more harm than good to the project and I'm coming to think of these nominations as disruptive. Power.corrupts (talk) 13:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited. That means just because Marvel Comics is worthy of an article under wiki guidelines doesn't mean that this subtopic deserves its own article. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Up until "Tens of thousands of years ago" is actual valid background information that should be covered, but Marvel Universe is where is should be summarized. After that, everything can only be strung together with original research. With the sliding timeline and the various different planets covered within the franchise, it is basically impossible to discuss anything from an academic standpoint. How exactly do you pick and choose what is important? It also just turns into "Fictional history of the Marvel Earth" after the "Thousands of years ago" section, so that makes it even more pointless with the "Earth-#" articles in existence. TTN (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - needs to be properly sourced to avoid original research, and include sources beyond primary sources. If that proves impossible, we can always merge the most pertinent bits back into Marvel Universe. BOZ (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. In the absence of any third-party reliable sources about the history of the Marvel Universe, this article is WP:SYNTHESIS. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Please keep in mind the difference between the article subject and the article as currently written. The latter can be changed, the former is an entity that cannot be restored, only duplicated; deletion is a serious thing, a black mark on the credibility of any duplicate. That being said, there are problems with both; the subject is extremely wide-ranging and prone to either vagueness or great length. Suggest renaming the article to Marvel Universe canon or Canon of the Marvel Comics or similar. Anarchangel (talk) 01:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)*Delete as original research. Just as with Fictional history of the DC Universe, this article only has primary sources and unless independent work is written on the subject of how this particular fictional universe is constructed, this artcile can't be salvaged. --Pc13 (talk) 17:00, 23 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.