Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of retroactive continuities


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 08:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

List of retroactive continuities

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Lots of reasons, primarily that the article has no inline citations (I know the source could be deemed to be the works themselves, but that a piece of work is externally inconsistent with other works in the series surely needs backing up) Also it's mostly a collection of trivia, a short list of notable retcons in the retcon article is more than sufficient. JeffUK (talk) 10:23, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 10:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:08, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Television,  and Video games. Skynxnex (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is currently just an example farm (an extremely poor one, at that, since there are many examples that are not, in fact, retcons), that borders on just being pure WP:TRIVIA. There are no reliable sources included that establish why any of this particular grouping are actually notable examples of the phenomenon, which is pretty much essential for a topic on such a common literary device. On top of that, a separate "List of examples" spinout is really not needed in this case, because the actual Retroactive continuity article is already largely just a list of examples. Rorshacma (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - per Rorshacma. Even notability and sourcing issues aside, as mentioned above, most of the parent article itself consists of a (bloated and generally poor or unsourced) list of examples, so it could also be seen as an unnecessary split. Sergecross73   msg me  19:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, indiscriminate list. Even fully sourced (which it currently is not, and many of the sources are of dubious reliability), this list has no possible inclusion criteria that would separate the so-called "notable" retcons from the potentially infinite space of inconsequential continuity errors that nerds love to catalog. The fact of the matter is that fiction is not science and fictional worlds do not obey fundamental laws of the (real) universe that impose logical consistency. Writers are human and make human mistakes, or simply change their minds about how something works in a sequel! We do not actually need a list to catalog every time a writer has made a mistake or changed their mind. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete This is way too broad per WP:SALAT (anything even approaching exhaustive would be terribly WP:INDISCRIMINATE), and the issues that have been raised about sourcing/WP:OR are also pretty serious. Put simply, this topic does not lend itself to a list article. TompaDompa (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - just a mess of unsourced, unlinked and trivial junk. I think I sense SNOW, folks. CPORfan (talk) 06:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete this list is WP:IINFO and WP:OR. The right way to cover this is at retroactive continuity in prose. Jontesta (talk) 21:04, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak delete or (preferred) merge/redirect to Retroactive continuity. I mean, the list fails LISTN and WP:IPC BUT the main article is very poor and mostly unreferenced, while the list here does have references. Perhaps a few sources from here would be of use in the main article. I'd strongly suggest softdeletion by redirecting at least rather than hard, and leaving a note about possible sources on the Talk:Retroactive continuity. Maybe one day someone will want to dig through both of these messes and see if something is of use; the concept of "Retroactive continuity" is of course notable, it's just that our execution is terrible (and argument could be made for WP:TNTing the main article too but, sigh, there are few usable sentneces here and there, maybe a few sources too...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and probably WP:JUSTPLOT. Also it seems to attract a lot of poorly sourced and useless additions plus confusion over what a retcon actually is. &#34;You don&#39;t really know the darkness until you become the the dark ness&#34; (talk) 02:00, 7 December 2022 (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.