Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the DC Universe


 * 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 Cena rium  Talk  12:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Timeline of the DC Universe

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

In-universe fictional timeline with precious little real-world context and a lot of original research. Given DC Comics constantly revises its timeline, any attempt to create a cohesive timeline of the millieu would be original research and fan-fiction. Definitely not of encyclopedic merit. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related article for similar reasons:


 * Oppose - The information can be presented based upon primary and other sources. Such sources are indeed allowed, within specific guidelines. See WP:OR. AFD isn't cleanup. - jc37 03:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with the primary sources is that they are fictional and contradictory. These lists are essentially plot summary gone mad. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Except that these are actually not a plot summary. As I noted in the other discussion, each of these events can (and should) be sourced. However, demanding such sources now, seems rather contrary to the "wiki-way".
 * Also, to make a judgement of whether the information is "contradictory", you have to be applying WP:OR yourself. - jc37 11:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not how original research works. As for contradiction, check out the section on the Big Bang. There's four different explanations. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works? Last I recall, making a "judgement" about any information is not what we do here. To re-state: Your analysis that the information is contradictory requires a source, else it's not valid.
 * In other words, it seems the the problem is that you appear focused on the "in-universe" continuity, and it may be biasing your opinion. - jc37 09:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Original research primarily refers to synthesizing sources to forward your own, original viewpoint, or doing your own research (interviewing people, performing your own experiments, etc.). We have to make judgement calls on sources all the time, in every field, because some are just bad research or totally worthless. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That might be all well and food, except that my comments were responding to: "The problem with the primary sources is that they are fictional and contradictory. These lists are essentially plot summary gone mad."
 * Which is subjectively your opinion. Indeed, I think you'd have a hard sell to suggest that the primary sources in this case (the comics themselves), as "totally worthless". - jc37 00:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And do you not see the irony of (para-phrasing): "The information is clearly in-universe. Also, the in-universe information presented contradicts itself." - jc37 09:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no contradiction. It's all fictional, but this article is trying to present it as clearly defined fact. I was pointing out why it cannot be considered clearly defined fact. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As for the section you note, that's an excellent example of how the list is not quite "in-universe", listing several of the presentations of the "beginning". - jc37 09:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it demonstrates the flaw in trying to create a ficitonal timeline in a medium where people change things all the time. Hell, DC itself didn't care about cross-title continuity for the longest time, and to this day they ignore continuity if it suits them. There's a quote from Dennis O'Neil that I cited in the Batman article where he notes that in the 1970s he was not expected to coordinated with authors and editors on other Batman titles and certainly didn't go out of his way to do so himself. I mean, try working Bob Haney's Brave & the Bold run into the timeline (y'know, the one where he had Batman teaming up with a World War II hero and heroes established as being from parallel Earths with no explanation, and where he decided that Batman and Superman each had full-grown sons that they just had never bothered to mention before). WesleyDodds (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Your post above illustrates where I think you are confusing/conflating several things.
 * All of those things should indeed be noted on the page (though possibly as footnotes?).
 * You're so focued on the idea of this being an current timeline of current continuity, that you're not seeing how this can be (and is being) developed. See the discussion with Hiding, below.
 * Not to be too glib, but "can't see the forest for the trees", really seems to apply in this case. You see these extant trees, and you don't see how they can make up a great forest, and how further pruning and planting could potentially help develop the forest even more. - jc37 00:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete In-universe, contradictory, no secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I lean towards deletion for the reasons expressed at Articles for deletion/Batman's career timeline, although they tend to apply differently here. This article is written from an in-universe perspective for starters, and places primacy upon current continuity rather than previous continuities. It's also still in part original research.  Where do you draw the line on what to include?  There's no self-selection criteria.  I've been thinking about this, and I think better ways of doing this is listing first appearances by order of first publication, like List of comic book supervillain debuts. That's self-selecting, and doesn't entail original research or point of view advancement. Maybe the best way to write about this is to have an article on the way the timeline has been shaped and distorted through events, citing reliable sources. Hiding T 10:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "and places primacy upon current continuity rather than previous continuities" - I agree that it needs cleanup along these lines. But as I mentioned before, I don't think deleting it is the solution to cleanup. - jc37 11:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning towards keeping, although I agree that the article needs work. Big time. It's been pointed out the fallacy in my argument for self-selection, which is that it applies to all plot summary on Wikipedia. Squaring the circle of summarising plot within WP:NOR is a greater debate than should be had here. Hiding T 11:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Very Weak Keep rewrite to incorporate real world impact/retcons/etc and try to find additional references focused on these changes (for instance when DC retcon something, find a source that gives a reason and include it in the article). Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Superman was sent to earth "58 years ago"? He looks pretty good for an old geezer.  Mandsford (talk) 13:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, with changes -It is precisely because DC has reinvented its continuity wholesale so often that an article like this is needed by those who are curious as to what applies (or doesn't anymore.) However I do agree that too much speculation has been added to the page; perhaps it should be limited to quotes from direct timelines offered by DC (such as the one from DC Universe Secret Files.) - Wilfredo Martinez (talk) 13:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a guide to help you read comics. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's what was being said above. The suggestion would seem to be that this encylopedia entry might shed light on the history of DC's constantly updating/merging universe (Started even before All Star Comics #3). - jc37 11:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't shed light on DC's constantly changing fictional history. It's a bullet point list of in-universe information pared down to represent a cohesive, logical timeline, when the in-universe timelines is anything but cohesive or logical. This sort of thing is more acceptable for a fan-site. And I've seen several fansites with timelines like these; I in fact enjoy reading them. But it's not the sort of thing that acceptable for an out-of-universe general encyclopedia. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see my response above. - jc37 09:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep something of this nature is important to the understanding of the DC Universe, though it does need to be cleaned up... especially since DC rebooted several times. 70.55.89.214 (talk) 14:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep If the DC/Marvel universes are notable, their history must be as well. These articles would be invaluable to anyone seeking a basic knowledge of the universes, without having to sift through endless pages of character-specific bios.  Strongest Possible Keep. Vrefron (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's very flawed logic. DC Comics and Marvel comics are notable, definitely. Their fictional universes? maybe. A timeline listing fictional events? No. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually that stance is subjective, and has nothing to do with logic, except by being a logical fallacy. - jc37 09:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete based upon the fact that the DC Universe (and this goes for the Marvel Universe, too) does not maintain a consistent chronology, and even though this is well sourced with the fictional matter used to establish these dates, the fact is tomorrow DC could release a comic that reboots everything. At this moment, in fact, there are at least 2 separate Batman continuities underway (the basic one and Batman Confidential which has Barbara Gordon as Batgirl in the modern day, even while Birds of Prey has wheelchair bound Gordon/Batgirl in the present day). Superman has about 3. And don't even get me started on the Legion of Superheroes. This list is impossible to maintain without going into WP:NOR or copyvio of some of the published chronologies that do exist. Now, an article that might be viable is one that discusses the ever-changing chronologies of the DCU. But a list like this just does not work for me. This isn't a case of notability, it's a case of VIABILITY. This article does not have it. In addition this topic is so potentially detailed that it would truly be more appropriate for a Wikia site dedicated to DC. 23skidoo (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm encouraged by the fact that so many of the listed items (on both pages) are blue links. The events themselves are notable, so an attempt (backed by sources, which surely must exist) to list them in chronological order is worthwhile. I think these articles can be cleaned up to comply with policy, and that will involve some trimming - but it's much preferable to deletion, and this is the sort of article that will likely be recreated repeatedly if there's nothing here. Even if it's a reduced list, surely there's something here that can be kept. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 14:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You're assuming too much. Regardless of the items are notable, virtually everything in this list is fictional, and is lacking a real-world context. As I've pointed out before, some of the items listed in the timeline contradict or are contradicted by other events in the comics, but those aren't acknowledged. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This is the sort of article necessary for the non expert to make sense of the material. Everything in a list of fictional being fictional is not a reason for deletion. DGG (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability according to Notability (fiction) has not been established in this article, so yes there is a reason to delete. And I would argue that this timeline is not at all helpful to the casual reader, since it assumes a good deal of familiarity with the subject matter. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability (fiction) is currently under constant debate/discussion, and is not consistant practice, so you may wish to be wary quoting it as your rationale. - jc37 09:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * True.. It would be nice if there were any agreement there, but so far there has been no stable compromise. As for usefulness, I can only say that as a person unfamiliar with many of the games being discussed, I often find the  plot articles   incomprehensible for lack of context with regard to the other parts, especially when the chronological order is complicated, and presentations like this are what puts things into place. Even  DGG (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I"m referring the basic tenent of notability, in that it needs to be discussed by secondary sources. We need secondary sources that establish that the topic of this article, a timeline of the DC Universe (how is that being defined by the way? All the comcis ever published by DC?), is a notable topic of research and critical commentary by reliable sources. Remember, notability is not inherited. Just because DC Comics and the Justice League are notable does not mean a fictional timeline of events in the stories is notable. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, topic-related lists are, per WP:Summary style. Page length is an issue, and so it's preferred to have lists on their own pages, rather than having the main article being lengthy. - jc37 00:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:SYNTH applies. Even if it did not, the content is of a nature that would be suitable to a specialist wiki, rather than Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 09:00, 16 September 2008 (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.