Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of timelines in fiction


 * 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   no consensus.  Sandstein  07:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

List of timelines in fiction

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

As per WP:INDISCRIMINATE,WP:N and WP:SELF. Every work of fiction every created has contained a fictional time line and as such could be listed here Gnevin (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Utterly unencyclopedic, and necessarily going to be a silly article. THF (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per WP:NOT/WP:NOTDIR --MWOAP (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as above. i can almost see this as some sort of category, as it relates to articles having timelines in them. not sure of value of that category.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't understand the rationale of this: the appeals to policy as a basis for deletion are invalid. It's a list of articles that give fictional timelines. It's not at all indiscriminate - it is well defined - and it is not a directory of timelines as it only includes notable timelines (i.e. those that have been written about in-depth in reliable sources). It is not self-referential now that I've removed that lead wording. I've improved the format and removed the non-timeline entries. Also, lists and categories are not mutually exclusive. Fences  &amp;  Windows  14:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment You've changed the intro and now the intro doesn't match the text . It's a list of articles which contain timelines. Possible Category here but not an article Gnevin (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Fences  &amp;  Windows  14:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  14:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  14:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, not currently indiscriminate and superior to the category for navigation. Polarpanda (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Fences and Windows and Polarpanda. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Convenient springboard for finding cruft-laden articles for clean-up or deletion :-D :-D. --EEMIV (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and make into a category. There is no way this list can ever be complete, criteria are unclear, and there's essentially no content here. Jclemens (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete We can't list all lists of timelines in fiction, as this article attempts to do, that would be a breach of WP:IINFO and WP:NOT, as well as WP:SALAT. Unless there has been a significant amount of coverage of this collection of subjects, this can't become anything more than a laundry list, without any encyclopedic detail backing it up without the use of original research.  Them  From  Space  18:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is an example of a Category:Lists of lists, one of the navigational tools Wikipedia uses. Many of the items are already grouped into Category:Fictional timelines, but some cannot be as the timeline is only a section of an article, eg Ware Tetralogy. It only points to timelines that already exist within Wikipedia - it is a navigational tool. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It acts a navigational tool. It only list things that have their own Wikipedia article, and are thus proven notable by Wikipedia standards.   D r e a m Focus  02:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - so do categories, which is my vote:
 * Change to category. TomCat4680 (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Category's no good because several of these links go to sections within parent articles rather than to standalone articles.  Also, the annotation is often helpful.  Powers T 15:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep A useful navigational list. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. A "timeline" can be created for many fictional works listing the events described in them. We can write fictional timelines for anything from The Mayor of Casterbridge to Friends. "timelines in fiction" doenst make sense to me. --Geeteshgadkari (talk) 11:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you object to the article itself, or just the name? List of Wikipedia articles for timelines in various works of fiction or List of timeline articles in fiction would work fine also.   D r e a m Focus  13:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The article. Every fictional work whose plot runs though a few years has a timeline. We can not go and list all of them, and if we do, is it of any use? In short, can we answer, which are the works of fiction will not make this list? --Geeteshgadkari (talk) 13:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The ones that don't have timelines chronicled in Wikipedia. Powers T 14:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is for listing notable timelines. If I were thinking of writing, for example, "Timeline of The Forever War series" I'd need to base it on published, secondary, reliable sources. Fences  &amp;  Windows  15:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * '''Keep as per Fences and windows. Edward321 (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Fences and windows' rationale above, doesn't appear to be indiscriminate.   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 22:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: It's a basic navigation aid. If the articles themselves are notable enough to exist then a list of them is fairly standard.  This can't be covered in the same way by a category, as already explained above, and, even if it could, there's no reason not to have both a category and a list complementing each other. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 05:17, 11 January 2010 (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.