Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen timeline


 * 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 Keep – PeaceNT 07:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen timeline

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

This article, ostensibly a chronology of Alan Moore's The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, in fact includes vast amounts of information invented by Wikipedia editors and marked as "speculation". It also contains numerous historical events that are assumed without evidence to have occurred in Moore's universe. This is an exercise in creative writing in the guise of a Wikipedia article. Nareek 14:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. When this was PRODed I skecthed out my thoughts on how the entry could avoid deletion. As  it stands the entry needs a lot of work but I do think that it is possible to produce a good entry from this (probably two). (Emperor 15:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC))

FourtySixNtwo 06:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as a basic violation of WP:NOT's point concerning articles entirely composed of plot. '  (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 16:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep With proper editing could make a useful addition to the LOEG main page. Ottens 00:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Feeling Chatty. Clear violation since its just plot.  Also, lack of sources leads me to believe that a lot of this is original research.  Without any real-world context this is unnecessary fancruft that can be summarized in the article on the League of Extraordinary Gentlement. --The Way 05:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Lack of sources as well as speculation can easily be corrected. Real-world context could take a bit of time but would be interesting. I can add some info concerning the travels recorded in the almanac of Vol.2. I can also edit and clean up following the suggestions of Emperor. The timeline could also benefit from a list of the sometimes obscure but interesting Novels the League draws from.
 * Keep - It is a long article but it appears to meet notability (a feature film as well I believe?) - it appears well written, just needs some slight touches. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to butt in again after nominating this article for deletion, but I'm afraid that people aren't recognizing what's problematic about this article. The basic issue is that it's not a plot summary of Moore's work; instead, it takes characters that are appear (often in the briefest way) in the comic and imagines what kind of interactions they might have had in Moore's imaginary universe.  This is a fun project but completely unencyclopedic.  I think editors who say this problem can "easily be corrected" or that it "just needs some slight touches" are completely understating the problems here--it is very difficult and I believe impossible (hence the nomination) to separate the references to Moore's work from the fan fiction.  An article that restricted itself--as Wikipedia is required to--to dates that are actually found in Moore's work would be a very short article indeed. Nareek 15:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but fan fiction? Everything in the timeline is directly from the pages of Moore's work, or in the text of The New Traveller's Almanac, and furthermore every entry in the timeline gives what works of literature the events/characters are drawn from and in a large part where they happen in Moore's work (volumes 1-2, NTA, A&SV). Jess Nevins and Jean-Marc Lofficier themselves have contributed to this timeline. Fan fiction? Khat Wordsmith 00:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I suppose my concern is that it isn't clear how much is OR and/or if it is largely plot summary. A lot us drawn from The New Traveller’s Almanac and often with information from Jess Nevins' books. Taking an example 1789: "(Speculation based on the internal timeline of Scarlet Pimpernel series by Baroness Orczy and The New Traveller’s Almanac by Alan Moore)." This would imply this is speculative guesswork combined with plot summary. As I said on the talk page I think this would probably be better on a fan site and I am concerned that this timeline is either just largely stating the bulk of The New Traveller’s Almanac with original research, especially as no one seems to have produced such a timeline before (it also impinges on my broader concerns about canon (fiction) in that often the creators make no real attempt to create a canon and it is largely a product of fan speculation and has no real place in Wikipedia). It may be largely correct and is certainly of interest (at least to me) but is Wikipedia the best place for this? (Emperor 17:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC))
 * Comment, I'd love to better understand what the issue is, I don't seem to understand the argument about plot summary and canon. There is a very small amount of speculation and fanfic in the Timeline. It would indeed be easy to clean it up and restrict it to what is explicitly told in Moore's universe and keep out speculation (and I will work on that). The Timeline, without fanfic and speculation, is in fact a chronology (based on Moore's work in the Almanac) of the time between the dismantling of Mina's First League and the events in the upcoming Black Dossier, as well as the travels of Prospero's Group (the first league). If you actually sit down and look at the dates in Moore's work you see it spans from the 1600's to about the 1920's and that doesnt sound like it would constitute a very short article to me unless you're extremely concise. FourtySixNtwo 18:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep At it's worst it is a bit rambling and shot through with speculation on what Moore only implies in NTA, which, I'll admit, are a bit glaring and need to be ironed out. I think most if not all of this can be filled in properly after BD comes out. As far as to whether this is or is not better suited for a fan page... I defer to other's better versed in the religion of "what does or does not belong on Wikipedia." I for one am for keeping it, though. Khat Wordsmith 00:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and Clean up Most of the events referenced state are acompanied by their sources. But you do have a point that some of this is marked within the text itself as "speculation" of one form or another. Either remove speculations or attribute who is doing them. Nevins, Lofficier or someone else, but not anonymously. User:Dimadick
 * Keep and fix up. Spacepotato 00:30, 27 January 2007 (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.