Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politicalchronology


 * 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. Primarily as per WP:NEO - timelines can exist but not as FORKS or under a neologism ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 15:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Politicalchronology, etc.

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Appears to be mixture of original research and forked content from other articles to justify a non-notable neologism. Scjessey (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Politicalchronology does not refer to external research in its field, it is designed to be a source of world political chronology.  Nor is the article fully completed yet and all references and sorces required will be edited, as well as further guidance and description.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carl29gbg (talk • contribs) 15:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You could at least start by providing a reference to the term "politicalchronology". At least then reviewing editors would have something to go on. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, possibly merge. With 5 non-WP:RS Google results, "Politicalchronology" is a clear violation of WP:NEO. I would suggest renaming the list but I fail to see a consistent pattern in its organization. Besides, it looks like an unnecessary fork from List of years in politics or other similar lists. — Rankiri (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all per the above and below. -- Explodicle (T/C) 19:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I hate to say delete just because it has a stupid title (and it really does). It's organized well, every one of the entries is sourced (always a pleasant surprise in a Wikipedia article), and it's concise, saying in one sentence what folks like I would take a paragraph to say.   If this were retitled "Changes in national government 2000 - present" or something of that nature, I would find it acceptable.  Mandsford (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The list is sourced, but the introduction is original research. I'm also concerned about the selection criteria of this list, which hints at a synthesis problem. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I strongly disagree with the assertion that "every one of the entries is sourced". Although the article technically starts at 2000, the entries do not begin until 2002. So how come almost every single reference is to a Reuters article from the year 2000? O Fenian (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Politicalchronology 1990s added at this point. &mdash; RHaworth 21:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Speedy A10 could be used. Fully covered by xxxx in politics articles. &mdash; RHaworth 21:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete both. Nn neologism & cherry picked content. -- blue 520  12:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - neologism, covered by categories, entries picked according to made-up standard. I also suggest deleting Political timeline of the 1980s and Politicalchronology 1970s, and stopping this experiment before it spins out of control. - Biruitorul Talk 04:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Now the article has been moved to a different title. Twice. Very annoying when this happens in the middle of the AfD process. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete In principle I could see a timeline of major political events affecting states' political governance or whatever being created in the article namespace. However, such timelines need inclusion criteria and the terminology used in this article's lead is just weird and would better belong on a private homepage. Consider moving to user namespace as user subpages, if the editor wishes to continue work on them until they have a chance of being up to standard. My vote also applies to the 1970s and 1980s articles. Tomas e (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable neologism. EeepEeep (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NEO, WP:OR, needless fork. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:33, 26 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.