Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Valve Corporation


 * 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.  Sandstein  16:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Timeline of Valve Corporation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unnecessary chronological timeline of the company history of Valve Corporation. It retells the company history in a chronological fashion, unnecessary and redundant. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete' per nom. It is an unnecessary article. Most information from this timeline is covered in the main Valve article. AdrianGamer (talk) 08:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete article if there is nothing to be merged.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   08:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect, since it's an unnecessary split, but it's plausible that someone would look for the phrase. --Izno (talk) 11:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:LISTN and WP:Stand-alone lists, timelines are a type or list articles. The history section at Valve Corporation is not written in chronological order, so this list provides a better explanation of the timeline of the company, and per WP:SPLIT it's OK to have dependent articles providing additional detail of the information at the base article. Diego (talk) 11:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge to Valve Corporation. So far, I do not see any policy-based arguments for deletion. Timelines are a valid and accepted type of list-based article on Wikipedia; see Timeline and Category:Timelines for examples. This particular timeline article is well referenced by RS and so this seems a well-formed article with verifiable content; there is no reason for deletion. While there is a little overlap, I don't see any organized timelines in Valve Corporation, so don't understand the claim that this article is redundant. Indeed, this article is the main article for the Valve Corporation section. Hence I am inclined to keep the article. I would not be opposed to merging this article back into Valve Corporation, but merging isn't deletion. --Mark viking (talk) 11:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:Timeline says "Timelines describe the events that occurred before another event, leading up to it, causing it, and also those that occurred right afterward that were attributable to it". This is a chronological history of a company, not an event. Why should there be a timeline-like article on a company, when there already is a Valve Corporation section? soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And before I start butchering the article, what makes a moment in the company's history notable? Currently, it says that on October 9, 2007 Portal was released - when did development start? How was it received? Or is that actually part of Valve's history, or part of the history of one of its products? In May 2008, Valve announced that their games will "soon" sell more through Steam than through retail sales. What does that mean? How soon? And what were the sales, digitally and through retail? And is that announcement notable to begin with? On July 10, 2008 GOG.com was released - how is that part of Valve's history? It's a competitor, sure, but in this timeline, it doesn't seem to have any impact on Valve. In March 2012, Valve hired Yanis Varoufakis to study in-game economies - why, for what purpose, and how did that turn out? soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete There shouldn't be a "main article" to a subsistantial part of the actual article. The timeline lists out the original history in table form, not more. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 13:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Why should there be any more content? All timeline articles contain information that is available in their respective "topic" articles. What is not available, and the timeline provides, is the ordering that is not present in the original article. If there's no agreement for a stand-alone article, the timeline should be definitely merged back to Valve Corporation, not deleted. Diego (talk) 13:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Redundant and unnecessary. There's no reason to merge the timeline either as this content should be covered in the prose of the Valve Corporation article, which at the moment is in need of a significant rewrite. Also a large portion of this timeline is already contained on the timeline in the Steam (software), giving less reason to keep or merge this one. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect. Article is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK, and doesn't provide any additional information compared to Valve Corporation. While displaying the events in chronological order is useful, a seperate article isn't need to do so. Sunmist3 (talk) 10:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per Sunmist. This is a needless content fork with not insignificant editorializing with its decision to include certain events. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete this article is redundant and does not have enough weight to stand alone. ZettaComposer (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- is there a term "corporate cruft"? :-) On a serious note, this is a needless content fork as pointed above and this chronological presentation is unnecessary. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - All of the (notable) info should be written in prose in the main article instead. ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 07:54, 16 August 2016 (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.