Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline skew theories for The West Wing (2nd nomination)


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;   &spades;  23:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Timeline skew theories for The West Wing
Entirely original research. This is an article on fan theories about The West Wing. It is unsourced, and cannot be traced to reliable sources. Phil Sandifer 00:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per first AfD. Needs clean-up, not deletion. &mdash; Scm83x hook 'em 00:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What sources can be used to clean it up? It's an article about fan theories - it's next to impossible to keep this from being OR. Phil Sandifer 00:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete It's OR, which is not allowed. TJ Spyke 01:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I got rid of all the OR at the end of the article and just cited all of the claims. I suggest a name change to something like Real-world timeline comparisons for The West Wing. &mdash; Scm83x hook 'em 01:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This is still all OR - it's constructing theories about events in the West Wing based entirely off of primary source material. Phil Sandifer 02:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It can't be OR if it's just a comparison of the two timelines, the real one and The West Wing timeline: "This is The West Wing timeline, this is the real world.  Here are the differences." That is what the article is now with the addition of the cited theory by the TV magazine, TV Zone. It's too much to go in the larger article, which is why it was split off in the first place. &mdash; Scm83x hook 'em 02:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete it's not OR if you can point to specific people/places where these theories have been put forth. That does not, however, answer the question of why in the world we would want or need an article on what random internet people think about the timeline of events on a TV show. Opabinia regalis 02:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see Inconsistencies in the Star Trek canon, Physics and Star Trek, and Star Trek versus Star Wars, and also Category:Star Wars fandom, Star Wars canon, Middle-earth canon, and Tommy Westphall for other examples of articles in the same vein as this one. &mdash; Scm83x hook 'em 03:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that those articles you list seem to be original research and should probably be deleted as well, or at least drastically reduced to verifiable content and merged, except for star trek physics maybe, as that has been written about by several people. Wickethewok 03:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the point is lost in all of this conversation. Please look at this article as it existed yesterday and the difference to today.  If that much improvement can be made in one day, why delete the article because the research isn't done yet? &mdash; Scm83x hook 'em 03:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree that any substantial progress has been made. You have cited basic facts from the series, however, you have failed to address the far more important concerns regarding the synthesis of these ideas into more complex conclusions.  This article has been around for nearly a year now, so its not like it hasn't been given a chance since the last AFD for this.  Wickethewok 03:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per Phil Sandifer and Opabinia regalis. GassyGuy 03:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - Excessively original research. The article consists of unobvious and dubious conclusions drawn from basic data, which is most clearly a violation of WP:OR.  There are citations for some of the basic facts, but then these are extrapolated in a fit of assumptions, fan theories, and other unverifiable synthesis.  Wickethewok 03:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - I would like to see this material kept in some form. A quick look through the references currently in the article shows that attempts to resolve the timeline skew do exist in published media. However, a lot of the current content could be pruned, and perhaps this article should be merged into another. savidan(talk) (e@) 04:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * For reference, article was already forked from the FA The West Wing. &mdash; Scm83x hook 'em 04:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, as a vote that hopefully carries some weight as I was the nominator in it's first AFD. This subject requires coverage, given the importance of dates in politics (especially a show modelled after real-world politics). The FAC showed the information needs to be split, and this article covers an effective radius of information. Do I think it needs a rewrite? Sure. But deletion? No. Staxringold talkcontribs 05:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This is textbook original research, not to mention fancruft. The articles cited by Scm83x should be considered for deletion too. -- I sl a y So lo mo n  |  t a l k  05:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Harmless and interesting.  All statements about the show are supported, and most of the theories presented are based on other sources.  There is, I suppose, some analysis of claims put forward by others which is arguably OR, but I would guess that one could source it, at least to message boards and such.  I suggested before that the best solution to this would be to include a discussion of the timeline skew in an article more broadly about the fictional universe of The West Wing, and I think that that would still be the best solution, but nobody seemed to care. john k 16:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The subject of the article is just OR. The citations provided are just the episodes, and all they can be used to reference are the facts; they do not have any bearing on the theories advanced by the article. The timeline skew theories themselves remain uncited. Andrew Levine 16:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and find references. --Benn Newman 16:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This assumes that the references exist - I'm uncertain that's possible. Phil Sandifer 17:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Googling "West Wing" timeline skew gets a total of 313 results that are not from Wikipedia. Most of these turn out to be irrelevent or reposts of Wikipedia content that doesn't follow the GFDL. I can find exactly one LJ post by a fan that attempts to create a timeline. In other words, there are no sources here. Phil Sandifer 17:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * MergePut a brief discussion in the main article for the show, if sources that are not OR can be found. The cites to the actual episodes from which infrences are made do not avoid OR synthesis.Edison 22:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete may be interesting, but it is not harmless. Original research as charged. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete even if it is not Origial Research, the dates have little notability in themselves. Any notability is in the real-world events that are compared.  Half a list is no list.  Delete. 168.103.119.81 14:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Theories are a completely valid and already covered material for wikipedia. -- Freemarket 16:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This doesn't seem to address any of the concerns. Phil Sandifer 16:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Even after the attempt to source material, it is original research - none of the conclusions or speculation are sourced, just what was on the show when. It is also non-encyclopedic.  After this much time (the first AFD to now) with the verifiability of the article under challenge, it is safe to presume that it is not verifiable.  The only source about the timeline that is cited is the TV Zone article, so there is no evidence of real world significance or notability.  As a side problem (but not an additional reason for deletion) the article does a poor job adhering to the manual of style guide requiring articles about fiction to be about the real world significance of that fiction.  GRBerry 14:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. I agree with what john k wrote. --- OldRightist 14:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as far as I could tell, only one of the sources actually makes the arguments upon which the whole article is based,  Tewfik Talk 00:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The altered election date is a significant and unavoidable aspect of the WW. Because of that, it must be recognized with an article. With time, this article can improve to be without any original work. More people will edit it to make it better. That's what wikipedia is all about. -- HowardDean 16:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Again - are there any sources? If there are not sources that can be added, no amount of effort can be added to fix this article. Phil Sandifer 17:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Seems to be a good number of references at the bottom. Might not seem like a great article to me but somebody put alot of work into it and better to err on the side of Caution.Chris Kreider 19:10, 26 October 2006 (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.