Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the BattleTech 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. Tone 21:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

History of the BattleTech universe

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article is almost exclusively a plot-only description of a fictional work and lacks references independent of the subject from third-party sources which means it doesn't meet verifiability to check notability. The article relies on primary sources and it appears to be original research by synthesis. Also, it is written with an in-universe perspective that lacks real-world perspective. It's an unneeded content fork that doesn't meet the criteria of the general notability guideline and falls into the criteria of reasons for deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  —Jfgslo (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  —Jfgslo (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  —Jfgslo (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  —Jfgslo (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  —Jfgslo (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Can't understand such a massively popular series, without being able to read through its fictional history. Very encyclopedic.  I believe we had this same debate for the histories of other universes/series, from Star Wars, Star Trek, Harry Potter, and others.  Sometimes they are called timelines.   D r e a m Focus  16:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong delete: WP:NOTPLOT: "Plot-only description of fictional works." Pure "fictional histories" are thus never encyclopaedic, by explicit policy. Complete lack of third-party sourcing is independently highly problematical. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per NOTPLOT, this belongs on a wiki dedicated to BattleTech not Wikipedia, this is way too much detail, Sadads (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or transwiki somewhere that can use this per NOTPLOT. Way, way, way too much detail. OSbornarfcontribs. 18:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete you can understand this series without a WP:CONTENTFORK by referring to the WP:DUE and concise summary at the main series article. We've had this same debate for numerous timelines... including Harry Potter. And they're all deleted... barring some heroic reason that the main article isn't enough and that sources can justify an entirely separate article. There's a consensus that timelines aren't inherently notable and there are policies such as WP:NOT that represent what the actual consensus is. Precedents:
 * Articles for deletion/Dragonlance timeline (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Chronology of the Harry Potter series (5th nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Honorverse timeline
 * Articles for deletion/Neon Genesis Evangelion timeline (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Shadowrun timeline (3rd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/The Sopranos timeline
 * Articles for deletion/Thurian Age
 * Articles for deletion/Historical Wheel of Time events
 * Articles for deletion/World of Greyhawk timeline
 * Shooterwalker (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would think that shows that if you keep nominating something long enough, you'll get people who agree with you to end it your way.  D r e a m Focus  01:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Remember to assume good faith. The few re-nominations involved articles that were deleted then re-created, or found themselves at "no consensus" as people tried to argue about whether the articles had any potential to meet consensus policies and guidelines. The best way to rescue an article is help it meet consensus policies and guidelines... not baldly asserting it's fine the way it is. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I transwikied the entire history of the article to http://battletech.wikia.com/wiki/History_of_the_BattleTech_universe to save all the work of the editors who have worked on in since it was created on October 4 2004.  D r e a m Focus  19:27, 3 February 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.