Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline skew theories for The West Wing (3rd 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 10:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Timeline skew theories for The West Wing

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

Mildly interesting to a fan (perhaps!), but it consists by definition, of uncyclopaedic, irrelevant speculation, with no hope of ever evolving John24601 17:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * First AFD, Second AFD


 * Delete per the policy against original research, WP:NOR. Three months after the second AFD, no new sources have been added to the article.  That was itself 11 months after the first AFD, and the only sources added in the interim were citations to particular episodes, not to discussion about timeline theories.  All of the timeline theories constitute a synthesis of original material.  GRBerry 18:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - This really is original research and serves to highlight the difference between verifiability and not being original research. There are numerous sources in the article, however, these only verify the simple facts.  These facts, however, are woven into a more complex tapestry of conjecture and synthesis, which is exactly what original research.  There seem to be a couple parts which may be useful in the West Wing article, however, there's really not enough for its own article.  Wickethewok 19:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge to The West Wing. Even if verifiable, not notable enough to deserve its own article. Argyriou (talk) 19:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Anything but Merge. The West Wing is a featured article.  This information was broken out in the course of its candidacy because it's not really encyclopedic but, at the time, it seemed to merit inclusion somewhere.  Do anything but put it back in the article! &mdash; Scm83x hook 'em 20:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as above Bwithh 21:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Trivial information. GassyGuy 22:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ral315 (talk) 03:43, 19 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.