Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional time travelers who have visited the Reign of Terror


 * 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. Grand master  ka  08:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

List of fictional time travelers who have visited the Reign of Terror

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

I can't begin to contemplate the number of ways this is unencyclopedic... juxtapositions of two different things to form a subject are rarely if even good ideas, to start with, and this one iks a textbook case of an indiscriminate collection of information. Being a tawdry list with ostensibly two items (yes, there are six names, but all from two episodes of TV programmes) doesn't help matters. Cruftcruftcruftycruftcruft. Grutness...wha?  00:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Pleclech 01:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless reliable sources emerge that these visits to the Reign of Terror took place (which would be notable). --Dhartung | Talk 01:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete that's a pretty pointless list! --Canley 02:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. —dima/s-ko/ 02:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per unbelievable triviality. --Haemo 02:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wow.  WP:BAI.  Mango juice talk 02:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * comment you know, you could have made the your point just as effectively without calling this cruft. FrozenPurpleCube 04:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I calls it as I sees it. You saying it isn't cruft? Grutness...wha?  01:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete pointless, unencyclopedic list -- Selmo  (talk) 04:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This isn't legitimate information. We might as well have a category for "How many and what types of blue socks are in my top dresser drawer" if this level of stuff gets added. Mens.Keper.Ra
 * Delete, too specific and narrow subject makes this list useless. J I P  | Talk 05:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep- Wow. came back to add a few more examples to something clearly labeled 'stub' and look what I find. This list was created because someone specifically said to me aloud they wished wikipedia had this info - so clearly it's information needed by the world. It neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg to have verifiable information here, and if as Grutness, an alleged incrementalist, said, the complaint is partially that it is not very fleshed out, well it IS a two day old stub that is being worked on. sheesh. I am so damn sick of the Wikipedia anti-time travel list lobby/cabal - it's this cabal more than any other that is ruining the Wikipedia. --John Kenneth Fisher 06:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * While information on what periods people have travelled to might be appropriate, perhaps you might want to start in a different direction, say by making a list of time travelers by era (or type. Sam Beckett is a different kind of time traveler than say the Protagonist of the book by Wells) instead of just concentrating on this singular example?  At some point in time, I suppose the people who visited the Reing of Terror might be a large enough section of such a list to deserve a spin-off, but that is not yet demonstrated.  FrozenPurpleCube 19:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I will likely do that... and I won't make the mistake I made here of putting it up early thinking other people will flesh it out while I'm still adding to it. --John Kenneth Fisher 19:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - sure I'm an incrementalist - I even coined the term and wrote the metawiki article on it. Incrementalism doesn't support the idea that any tiny subject is appropriate at a given point in Wikipedia's development. Maybe, just maybe, when Wikipedia is ten times the size it is today, such an article will fit alongside articles of equal worth. But WP is yet to reach that stage, and this article doesn't fit with current expectations of what a Wikipedia article should be. As an incrementalist I agree with FrozenPurpleCube's comments on starting with a larger, more appropriate list, and only breaking out smaller subtypes as and when they become approriate. Grutness...wha?  01:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 06:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm as pro-time-traveler-list as anybody, but this is clearly overcategorization, which is distinctly warned against. (Though I can't remember the document name) -- Y&#124;yukichigai 06:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Any more specific and they'd be visiting my house. How is visiting a location or event in any way notable? – Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This criterion does discriminate at least, but it is way too specific to provide anything useful to the readers. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Regardless of how well referenced this might be able to become, it opens the door for as many List of fictional time travelers who have visited the foo period as we can name foo periods.  There are a lot of foo periods.  Let's deem this arbitrary and overcategorization and stop here.  Serpent&#39;s Choice 07:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Credit where credit is due: this is one of the most absurdly trivial lists I have seen. I shudder at the infinite number of spins offs this list could generate if not stopped in its tracks. Perhaps all articles about historic events should have such a list attached? Shudder, WJBscribe (WJB talk) 09:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, verifiability is necessary but not sufficient for an article. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. I'm really not sure how this list is helpful or necessary, and the accusations of an "anti-time travel list cabal" really don't help that understanding. Seraphimblade 11:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Way too specific and unlikely to be expanded beyond the, really, only two examples. 23skidoo 13:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I think we could merge this article into another related one, it doesn't meet the priority for Wikipedia. But it could help add to an exsisting article. Rasillon 16:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per all. —  Brother  Flounder  (aka DiegoTehMexican) 17:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Given that the first revision description is Clearly the most important article Wikipedia has ever produced - but needs fleshing out. and the author stated "someone specifically said to me aloud they wished wikipedia had this info - so clearly it's information needed by the world.", I'm guessing this is some kind of hoax or bad joke. Ha ha, we get it, you're bored. --Vossanova o&lt; 18:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Was having fun with it, yes, but it was my brother working on an essay for school that mentioned that he looked in the Wikipedia for this info and couldn't find it. I suspected it wouldn't stand, and I admittedly was amused by it as I wrote the revision description, but it was not a joke, and was not a hoax, and was, as I said, added because I knew it was being looked for. I'd trot out AGF, but I can't exactly blame you for jumping to that conclusion, wrong as it is. --John Kenneth Fisher 19:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as trivia -- Whpq 19:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete beyond trivial -- Bill W. Smith, Jr. 19:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete just silly, and I'd hate to set a precedent with similar lists for other events/time periods (time travellers who have visited prehistoric times, time travellers who have visited the JFK shooting, etc.) The Reign of Terror article has several sections about fictional treatments, this could easily be worked in there. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  20:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.--Jersey Devil 20:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - The Wikipedia is ment to have information that a normal encylopedia might have. I often call it "The source of all knowledge". This certainly counts as knowledge ( as most stuff does). It is ridiculous to say that this is "unencyclooedic" when it isnt supposed to be! its supposed to be "Wikipedic" (cheesy, right?). Nick Scratch 22:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. However, this is not exactly a good example of an article that should be brought up as a martyr toward this end. "We want more diverse knowledge, like this!" "Oh yeah? Looks like trivial crap to me." (This is kind of like the "Save Betamax" campaign - People went "but I've already had VHS VCRs for the past decade or so, get on with the times" when the campaign was actually about the Betamax decision rather than Betamax itself...) I like diverse and even unusual information. However, this is not the information people really will need anyway. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete About a month ago I nominated another list as the most banal list of all time. But I was wrong, because here is the champion. Wholly trivial, wholly pointless, grossly incomplete (quotes only two tv programmes),totally useless, completely non-wikipedic and why are we even talking about it? Make it go away!--Anthony.bradbury 22:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Odd idea, I give it that... but unlikely to be useful (in any sense of word) as a trivia list by any stretch of imagination. "Reign of Terror in popular culture" might be acceptable - this, I don't know... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The point of lists and categories is to make it easier to find articles on Wikipedia. If someone wants to find out about this, they can get there through articles like Time travel in fiction or Reign of Terror. Keeping this would open the door to lists like List of Star Wars characters who've visited Endor and List of politicians who've eaten at the George St McDonald's in Sydney. While verifiable, none of these things are particularly character-defining. Quack 688 11:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Or, only slightly less bizarrely, List of Hindi Film Stars who have been to Mauritius, which did once exist... Joe 23:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Silly or not, the subject is already adequately covered in Reign_of_Terror Peter Grey 21:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for the reasons stated by nominator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zahir13 (talk • contribs)
 * 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.