Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline skew theories for The West Wing


 * 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 of the debate was No consensus. Physchim62 (talk) 14:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Timeline skew theories for The West Wing
Delete. First it was removed (by me) twice from the 2006 election page (West Wing Theory, an ironic name, being its only pusher), was then split from the main West Wing article. It is complete fancruft, spending an entire article discussing another magazine article and then flying off the handle with half-facts and completely original theories with no back-up in the show (the definition of fancruft and original research, as I understand them). Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Staxringold 06:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Whoa, this information was all forked from The West Wing where it had been for a very long time. The issue of what happened to shift the timeline in the show is a large one. A large portion of this article was built from an article appearing in a British television magazine, TV Zone. The fact that this theory is news-worthy, according to WP:No original research, makes it a valid encyclopedia article. I do not deny that there are some issues with the article, but I think that it should be the subject of a clean-up and not the subject of an AfD. -Scm83x 06:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Response to merge suggestions. In response to those who have said to merge, I want to point out what ESkog mentioned.  This article was already forked from The West Wing main article.  If we re-merge it, we will create a huge file again. The fact that people suggest the merge suggest that it is valid content, but the merge suggestion overlooks the history of the article's content. -Scm83x 21:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Very interesting material, but I'm having trouble seeing it as part of Wikipedia. Not all magazine articles qualify as news. Mentioning the sloppy writing and consequent inconsistent timeline on the West Wing page seems more appropriate to me. --William Pietri 07:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up. There are other articles on similar TV-show based theories (I forget the name of it now, but there's the one connected with St. Elsewhere, for example). The citing of a magazine article, plus use of examples from the show itself, removes it from the original thought criteria, IMO. 23skidoo 13:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - Various magazines publish speculation and nitpicking about various TV series all the time for various reasons. They do not need separate articles. - Skysmith 15:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's not real. Monicasdude 17:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fiction. Would make a nice entry in a West Wing website... but Wikipedia is not a West Wing website. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean. It's not original research, per 23skidoo and Scm83x. It's forked from The West Wing due to the length of the main article. ESkog | Talk 20:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, Fancruft. At best a candidate for a merge into the main article on the show.--Isotope23 21:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Response to merge suggestions. In response to those who have said to merge, I want to point out what ESkog mentioned. This article was already forked from The West Wing main article. If we re-merge it, we will create a huge file again. -Scm83x 21:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think a deleting this article and retooling the mention in the main article should suffice. The main theory of the one magazine article, that the 25th wasn't passed when it was in reality, is disproved almost immediately afterwards in the Time Skew article, so suggesting that that article makes the article valid is silly, as it is almost immediately set aside in exchange for fancruft theories. Staxringold 23:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete Speculation about a TV show. Not a valid encyclopedia article. Some mention of this can be put in the main The West Wing (television) article, but it doesn't need its own page. --JW1805 23:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Do we really need all this silly speculation about a TV show? I am a West Wing fan, but come on, it's fiction! - Dalbury (talk) 00:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * See also Please take a look at the following articles for instances of how this policy has been enforced elsewhere: Dragon Ball canon, Star Wars canon, Middle-earth canon, and Tommy Westphall. -Scm83x 00:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Fancruft is what wikipedia is all about.  Or at least, partially about.  As Scm notes, discussion of canon in various fictional universes is a common topic in wikipedia.  I don't see why this ought to be deleted. john k 07:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The notion that cruft justifies more cruft is abhorrent to me; it seems like a very slippery slope. Is there a line you'd draw, or do you feel that all fans of anything deserve space for things like this on Wikipedia? --William Pietri 18:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I was being somewhat facetious. I do, though, think it's generally unfair if there's a long-standing section in an article which gets too long, and is split off into its own article, which then gets deleted as fancruft.  It is to be added that this issue is far more central, I think, to the constructed universe of The West Wing than, say, the Endor Holocaust is to the Star Wars universe. john k 18:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and Clean. The article is of interest to certain readers of Wikipedia, generally West Wing fans, so the material is germane since the show has a large number of related articles. Given the potential size of this article, it should be its own separate entry. It does need to be cleaned up to the point where it appears as its own entry rather than a sub-entry, but that's all that it needs. -Keillan 17:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: A potential idea. Perhaps, instead of an article entirely devoted to timeline skew theories, we could create an article on what is known about the fictional alternative history of the show and the ways it deviates from actual history, which would include a discussion of the timeline skew issue.  That way the timeline skew issue wouldn't get a whole article devoted to it, but it wouldn't all have to go in the general West Wing article. john k 18:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment about the previous comment. "The West Wing" is fiction, and fiction that isn't terribly careful about internal or external consistency on non-central points. For example, in the current West Wing universe, the Secret Service isn't providing (visible) protection for Santos and Vinick. Should I revise the timeline skew article to suggest that RFK wasn't assassinated, or Wallace wasn't shot?  Maybe the timeline skew goes back much further -- there is, after all, no country called "Qumar" (or whatever) in the here and now. For it to exist, we pretty much have to go back and change Middle Eastern history in the aftermath of World War I. The whole timeline skew morass rests on a single comment about "2002" in a single episode, and all that the real "evidence" suggests is that an actor had a slip of the tongue, or that a writer made a minor mistake.  Where does this sort of babbling stop? (Semi)-scientific speculation about how side effects of a nuclear power plant keeps the characters in the Simpsons from aging? Speculation about the continuity in the comic strip B.C. and how its characters appear to know about contemporary social issues (and how characters in the B.C. period know about events reported on or about 33 A.D.)? What kind of scientific advances have been made in the CSI universe to enable them to conduct DNA analyses  in only a few hours, when in the here and now the tests take much longer? In the Disney universe, why has Goofy (a dog) had a pet dog of his own (Pluto)? (And why has ownership of Pluto changed so much, anyway?) Fiction is less consistent than reality, and Wikipedia shouldn't pretend otherwise. Monicasdude 19:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment The Secret Service is giving both candidates coverage. That would be why there are all the tall, silent men in black suits in the rest room with Vinick when Frost briefs him, why there are tall, silent men in black suits all standing around at the Al Smith dinner, etc. Staxringold 00:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * one more Comment. But not consistently enough. Remember in particular the scene where the two candidates meet in an apparently unsecured kitchen at the Al Smith dinner. It's a budget thing; in scenes calling for extras, a few are playing agents.  But in other scenes, they're not to be seen.  You're right that I wasn't clear enough, though, I should have said (consistent) rather than (visible).  Monicasdude 01:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * But you aren't listening. There were agents in the kitchen, not to mention that President's often have to come in through kitchens (we've seen Bartlet do it before). Staxringold 11:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep, mostly because I'm reluctant to outright delete content that was forked due to article length. This needs a rewrite by someone familiar with the series to correct for structural issues (move the discussion of timeline differences above the theories, etc.), and it could probably use a more intuitive title as well (Irregular Timeline in The West Wing?). -Colin Kimbrell 17:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment When I forked the article, I had trouble coming up with a name for it. I tried for the most intuitive thing I could, but I forgot that in addition to the theories, it is also a discussion of the differences.  I agree that the name change is necessary.  That, however, is an issue for after the AfD. -Scm83x 19:51, 10 November 2005 (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.